Re: libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3 after apt-get upgrade today from unstable included incorrect symlink?
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 04:50 pm, Ravenhall wrote:
> Package: libstdc++3
> Version: 1:3.0.4-13
> After running a dist-upgrade today from unstable, several programs
> (including apt-cache, apt-get, and mozilla) would give the following
> error when attempting to launch them from a console:
> error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3:
> cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
> I checked out /usr/lib, and found that
> /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3 indeed did not exist. I
> guesstimated from the existing symlinks that this should be linked to
> /usr/lib/libstdc++-3libc6.2-2-2.10.0.so. I created the link with (as
> ln -s /usr/lib/libstdc++-3libc6.2-2-2.10.0.so
> This then allowed me to use my programs as normal.
> There IS a similar link in /usr/lib, namely:
> /usr/lib/libstdc++libc6.2-2.so.3, linked to
> as well as:
> /usr/lib/libstdc++libc6.2-2.a.3, linked to
> Is it possible that these symlinks were typos? It appears that
> libstdc++ in both of these links should have been written as
> libstdc++- so I believe that these are typos.
> Nathan Waddell
Something of the sort happened here. I grabed Evolution1.2 7 Gimp1.3 +
depends and i get a similar error message. The difference I see between
my unstable box & woody box is the syntax? of the linked file
woody: libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3 -> libstdc++-3-libc6.2-2-2.10.0.so
unstable: libstdc++libc6.2-2.so.3 -> libstdc++-3libc6.2-2-2.10.0.so
there may be other differences but what is the significants of the
additional (-) after libstdc++ in the woody example?