On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:49:59 -0700 (PDT), Globe wrote: > > > > > > > fribidi-0.19.2-1.fc11 > > > > contains libfribidi.so.0 with the symbol > you > > refer to. > > > > > Clearly this is installed. But yum provides > > */libfribidi0* > > > > libfribidi.so.0 == libfribidi0* > > > > Since when? > > But that was my point!
Uh? libfribidi.so.0 (which the libraries internal name) is included within package "fribidi". Wherever you've found something on the web that points to something called "libfribidi0", that isn't applicable to Fedora. There may be other Linux distributions that put the library into a package called "libfribidi0", but not Fedora. $ repoquery --whatprovides libfribidi.so.0 fribidi-0:0.19.2-1.fc11.i586 $ rpm --query --provides fribidi|grep so libfribidi.so.0 $ objdump -T /usr/lib/libfribidi.so.0|grep get_type 007e79d0 g DF .text 00000023 Base fribidi_get_type_internal 007e7a00 g DF .text 00000023 Base fribidi_get_type > The responder indicated it was. So, > how does one get around the missing symbol, as in: > > abiword: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/libabiword-2.6.so: > undefined symbol: fribidi_get_type 1) Can you show that your "fribidi" package isn't damaged? Run: rpm -V fribidi 2) Can you show that the libfribidi.so.0 library is found and linked with /usr/lib/libabiword-2.6.so? Run: ldd -r /usr/lib/libabiword-2.6.so|grep frib -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
