Re: make install problem

2003-10-29 Thread Dimitrie O. Paun
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > My guess is that ldconfig has messed with the symlinks. Maybe because I have the old libwine*.so.1.0 in there... I'll get rid of them, sorry for the false alarm. -- Dimi.

Re: make install problem

2003-10-29 Thread Alexandre Julliard
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, I did a standard build: > > configure --with-nptl --silent && make -s depend && make -s > > than installed it (as root): > > make -s install My guess is that ldconfig has messed with the symlinks. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: make install problem

2003-10-29 Thread Dimitrie O. Paun
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Yes, and it seems to work fine here. Could you show us the exact > commands you ran and the relevant make output? Well, I did a standard build: configure --with-nptl --silent && make -s depend && make -s than installed it (as root): make -s

Re: make install problem

2003-10-29 Thread Alexandre Julliard
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That is to say, both libwine.so and libwine_unicode.so are fubared. > They point to old libs. Shouldn't they just point to the .1 versions? Yes, and it seems to work fine here. Could you show us the exact commands you ran and the relevant make outp

make install problem

2003-10-28 Thread Dimitrie O. Paun
Hi folks, We have a problem with 'make install' in the libs dir. More explicitly, after a 'make & make install', I have this in /usr/local/lib: [EMAIL PROTECTED] unicode]$ ls -l /usr/local/lib/libwine* -rw-r--r--1 root root 319332 Oct 27 12:01 /usr/local/lib/libwine_port.a lrwxrwxrw