Re: Libgsf 1.10 !!!!!!!

[Trouilliez Vincent <vincent trouilliez wanadoo fr>]

Hi David,

Well, thanks for shedding some light on this. In the future I will not delete older versions of libs when I update them !! :-/
Well, I have been using Linux for only 6 months, so I am still learning new things everyday. And today I learnt the HARD way ! :-/
Gnome was actually part of my distro (Ubuntu, which is built around Gnome and only Gnome), so I will re-install everything tomorow, will probably take me whole day.
Nevermind, I learned a lesson, so it's not totally useless I guess. pfff....

Regards,

Vince, big mistake today....



On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 17:43 +0000, David J Craigon wrote:
> Generally, you don't need to uninstall old versions of your libraries 
> when you install new ones. Suppose you have a library called libblah.so, 
> version 1. You install it, and the following files appear in /usr/lib- 
> /usr/lib/libblah.so.1, and a symbolic link- /usr/lib/libblah.so. When 
> you compile new programs they all link throught the symbolic link, but 
> _are actually linked specifically on /usr/lib/libblah.so.1_. You can see 
> this by running ldd on anything on /usr/bin.
>
> Now you install libblah.so version 2. /usr/lib/libblah.so.2 appears, and 
> the link /usr/lib/libblah.so is moved to /usr/lib/libblah.so.2. All the 
> programs you compiled before still reference /usr/lib/libblah.so.1 
> (version 1), but any new programs compiled will use version 2.
>
> (caution- I know 0% about synaptic, apt, or Debian)
>
> So, in summary, even though you've installed the new libgsf, all your 
> programs still relied on the old version. synaptic knew this, and 
> deleted them all when you asked it to remove the library. You should 
> have just left both installed, which probably would not have had any ill 
> effects.
>
> I can't offer much specific advice, but 1) I reckon your computer will 
> reboot, just without gnome  2) to rescue, try and reinstall all of the 
> gnome pacakges using however-you-installed-them-in-the-first-place.
>
> Hope this explains (if not actually helps),
>
> David