Re: Problem with control file for SLANG and/or MUTT
'John Goerzen wrote:'
>I got this message when attempting to install mutt on a machine:
>Unpacking mutt (from mutt_0.61-1.deb) ...
>dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of mutt:
> mutt depends on slang0.99.34 (>= 0.99.37); however:
> Package slang0.99.34 is not installed.
>Why is there a package named slang0.99.34 with a version of 0.99.37? This
>is *NOT* good!
It's not "bad" either. BTW, what do you mean by this "good/bad" thing
The upstream author hasn't chosen to use the "standard" naming
conventions for shared libs (when I get another chance I intend to
lobby him again). So my workaround is to keep the soname of
compatible libraries identical and let the version indicate versions.
Sounds simple now that I say it. If there are any real problems let
me know. I'm working on slang0.99.34-0.99.38 and would like to keep
everyone happy if possible.
Does anyone know what slackware and Red Hat are using for the soname
for slang? Probably I should add these compatibility symlinks:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 145580 Sep 23 16:44 libslang.so.0.99.23
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 152184 Feb 28 14:39 libslang.so.0.99.34
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 19 Feb 28 14:42 libslang.so.0.99.35 -> libslang.so.0.99.34
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 19 Feb 28 14:42 libslang.so.0.99.36 -> libslang.so.0.99.34
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 19 Feb 28 14:42 libslang.so.0.99.37 -> libslang.so.0.99.34
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 19 Feb 28 14:42 libslang.so.0.99.38 -> libslang.so.0.99.34
So far I only included the libslang.so.0.99.37 symlink. [Note: I
still have the ancient slang-lib-0.99.23-1 installed on my system
verifying that Debian 1.1's slang is upgradeable to the current bo
with no problems.]
Christopher J. Fearnley | Linux/Internet Consulting
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society)
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf | Design Science Revolutionary
"Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller | Explorer in Universe