Re: stale base libraries v. freshly-built packages

["John D. Baker" <jdbaker%mylinuxisp.com@localhost>]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, John D. Baker wrote:

> wouldn't work due to being explicitly linked against an older version
> of some shared libraries (e.g., libssl.so.9) or a library that is no
> longer part of the distribution (e.g., libexecinfo.so.x.y).

The primary issue that concerned me was that the "/usr/lib/libssl.so"
symbolic link pointed to "libssl.so.9.0" which didn't exist.  Even more
troubling was that although the DESTDIR of my build tree had the correct
target ("libssl.so.10.0"), the ".../etc/mtree/set.base" file showed the
stale target and the distribution set was created using the stale target.

A simple non-update build was insufficient to correct the inconsistency.
After nuking my build tree from the top level (the only way to be sure)
the subsequent build showed set lists and file names finally to agree,
using "libssl.so.10.0".

(This could, of course apply to any other shared library, it's just
libssl that made itself conspicuous this time.)

--
|/"\ John D. Baker, KN5UKS               NetBSD     Darwin/MacOS X
|\ / jdbaker[snail]mylinuxisp[flyspeck]com    OpenBSD            FreeBSD
| X  No HTML/proprietary data in email.   BSD just sits there and works!
|/ \ GPGkeyID:  D703 4A7E 479F 63F8 D3F4  BD99 9572 8F23 E4AD 1645