Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > Lars-Erik Thorelli wrote: > > I installed Fedora Core 4 from the DVD in the recent "Bible" by > > Christopher Negus without problems. > > Then I installed Lilypond, documentation, ghostscript, and compatibility > > libraries from http://www.lilypond.org/web/install/#2.6 . All seemed > > well. > > > > Executing the command "lilypond Test.ly" sadly produced the message: > > > > ========================== > > GNU LilyPond 2.6.3 > > /usr/share/guile/1.6/srfi/srfi-13.scm:159:1: In procedure dynamic-link > > in expression (load-extension "libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1" > > "scm_init_srfi_13"): > > /usr/share/guile/1.6/srfi/srfi-13.scm:159:1: file: > > "libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1", message: > > "libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1.so: cannot open shared object file: No > > such file or directory" > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# ls -l /usr/lib/libguile-srfi* > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 37 Aug 21 > > 12:15 /usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1.so.1 -> > > libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1.so.1.0.0 > > this is the one. What happens if you run ldconfig? And if you symlink > this one to libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1.so
Sorry to reply instead of Lars-Erik, but I was recently hurt by the same problem when installing FC4 on another computer. I didn't notice anything when runnning ldconfig but creating the first symlink of this list solved the problem. [EMAIL PROTECTED] lib]$ ls -l libguile-srfi*.so* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 37 sep 5 21:14 libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1.so -> libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1.so.1.0.0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 37 sep 4 21:54 libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1.so.1 -> libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1.so.1.0.0 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 78352 mar 2 2005 libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1.so.1.0.0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 33 sep 4 21:54 libguile-srfi-srfi-4-v-1.so.1 -> libguile-srfi-srfi-4-v-1.so.1.0.0 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 32832 mar 2 2005 libguile-srfi-srfi-4-v-1.so.1.0.0 This problem already existed in 2.5.29 rpm, as I reported in a previous message. I didn't understand it was just a missing symlink, so I compiled from source; and, guess what, the 2.6.x rpms I installed later on the same FC4 box worked fine! What I conclude is that the installation from source has created the good symlink that is missing in the RPM. (If it can help, I have installed FC4 on both machines from scratch.) -- John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
