At 16:08 Uhr -0500 02.02.2002, David R. Morrison wrote: >Hi Max. I'm testing your new zlib, and it works great. In both of the >packages I depended which depend on zlib, at the outset, otool -L gave > /sw/lib/libz.1.dylib (compat. 1.1.3, current 1.1.3) > >Then I installed the new zlib and everything still ran. > >Then I recompiled my packages; now otill -L gives > /usr/lib/libz.1.1.3.dylib (compat. 1.0.0, current 1.1.3) > >Everything still runs.
As expected :) Fine fine! >Here is my question, though. Do you know why the library got listed as >libz.1.dylib before, but now it is getting listed at libz.1.1.3.dylib? >It seems to me that it is more robust, for possible future upgrades, >if the otool listing gives libfoo.N.dylib (which is of course a symlink >to libfoo.N.x.y.dylib). I agree. The reason for this is that Apple symlinked /usr/lib/libz.dylib to libz.1.1.3.dylib rather than to libz.1.dylib. I don't like this, but that's how they did it. Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
