libgsf-1.so.1 missing

I just updated my system from the GNOME supplementary yast source. Yast
installed libgsf which comes with libgsf-1.so.113, however librsvg wants
libgsf-1.so.1.

I told yast to ignore the conflict and I just created the symlink
in /opt/gnome/lib manually using:
alvin@Desktop:~> sudo ln -s /opt/gnome/lib/libgsf-1.so.113.0.2

This seems to do the trick, but I was just wandering if libgsf will be
updated to include this symlink (libgsf-1.so.1)?

Alvin wrote:

> I just updated my system from the GNOME supplementary yast source. Yast
> installed libgsf which comes with libgsf-1.so.113, however librsvg wants
> libgsf-1.so.1.
>
> I told yast to ignore the conflict and I just created the symlink
> in /opt/gnome/lib manually using:
> alvin@Desktop:~> sudo ln -s /opt/gnome/lib/libgsf-1.so.113.0.2
>
> This seems to do the trick, but I was just wandering if libgsf will be
> updated to include this symlink (libgsf-1.so.1)?

I didn't finish the ln command. Here it is in its entirety:

alvin@Desktop:~> cd /opt/gnome/lib
alvin@Desktop:~> sudo ln -s libgsf-1.so.113.0.2 libgsf-1.so.1

Alvin

Alvin <please@reply_to_the_newsgroup.thanks> wrote:
> I just updated my system from the GNOME supplementary yast source. Yast
> installed libgsf which comes with libgsf-1.so.113, however librsvg wants
> libgsf-1.so.1.

The numbering scheme for libgsf's shared libraries was recently changed (it
has become independent of the versioning scheme for the libgsf source
package). Apparently the supplementary yast source you use has current
libgsf packages with the new versioning scheme. librsvg in SUSE Linux 10
was built against a libgsf library numbered according to the old scheme.

> I told yast to ignore the conflict and I just created the symlink
> in /opt/gnome/lib manually using:
> alvin@Desktop:~> sudo ln -s /opt/gnome/lib/libgsf-1.so.113.0.2
>
> This seems to do the trick,

It might seem to, but this kind of trickery is a recipe for disaster in
general.

> but I was just wandering if libgsf will be updated to include this symlink
> (libgsf-1.so.1)?

No. That would only be appropriate if both libraries had the same ABI
(application binary interface), which they don't.

HTH,
--
Ray Dassen
Technical Support Engineer, EMEA Services Center, Novell Technical Services
Novell, Inc. Software for the Open Enterprise http://www.novell.com/open

J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> Alvin <please@reply_to_the_newsgroup.thanks> wrote:
>> I just updated my system from the GNOME supplementary yast source. Yast
>> installed libgsf which comes with libgsf-1.so.113, however librsvg wants
>> libgsf-1.so.1.
>
> The numbering scheme for libgsf's shared libraries was recently changed (it
> has become independent of the versioning scheme for the libgsf source
> package). Apparently the supplementary yast source you use has current
> libgsf packages with the new versioning scheme. librsvg in SUSE Linux 10
> was built against a libgsf library numbered according to the old scheme.
>
>> I told yast to ignore the conflict and I just created the symlink
>> in /opt/gnome/lib manually using:
>> alvin@Desktop:~> sudo ln -s /opt/gnome/lib/libgsf-1.so.113.0.2
>>
>> This seems to do the trick,
>
> It might seem to, but this kind of trickery is a recipe for disaster in
> general.
>
>> but I was just wandering if libgsf will be updated to include this symlink
>> (libgsf-1.so.1)?
>
> No. That would only be appropriate if both libraries had the same ABI
> (application binary interface), which they don't.
>
> HTH,


So, do I understand right that we just have to wait for a new version of
librsvg to appear?

By the way, I see what Alvin describes in Suse 9.3. I don't think Alvin
mentioned which Suse version he's using.

It might also be relevant that the suplementary GNOME and KDE
directories contains different versions of the same packages. I haven't
investigated whether this fact can lead to trouble.

Mark

Mark Brand wrote:

> I don't think Alvin
> mentioned which Suse version he's using.

My bad. I'm using SUSE 9.3 with latest updates from the supplementary
sources.

Mark Brand <brandm@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> So, do I understand right that we just have to wait for a new version of
> librsvg to appear?

That's one solution; another would be to have runtime packages for the two
libgsf versions that can be installed in parallel. I'm not familiar with the
SUSE packaging of libgsf so I don't know if that's possible with the current
packaging, but I know that this is possible in general (because (switch
hats) that's exactly the route I've taken for Debian libgsf packages).
--
Ray Dassen
Technical Support Engineer, EMEA Services Center, Novell Technical Services
Novell, Inc. Software for the Open Enterprise http://www.novell.com/open

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:07:02 +0000, Alvin Beach wrote:

> Mark Brand wrote:
>
>> I don't think Alvin
>> mentioned which Suse version he's using.
>
> My bad. I'm using SUSE 9.3 with latest updates from the supplementary
> sources.

You may want to look in the gnome supplementary tree again. Both library
packages show a 11/09 date now. I downloaded both libgsf and librsvg and
did rpm query on them. The librsvg shows a requirement for libgsf-1.so.113
(instead of libgsf-1.so.1) which is provided by libgsf. Maybe someone had
filed a bug report and it got fixed.

--
sktsee