After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 591578 - no symlink for libevolution-cal-shared.so?
no symlink for libevolution-cal-shared.so?
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 591414
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: general
2.28.x (obsolete)
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Evolution Shell Maintainers Team
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2009-08-12 16:26 UTC by Yves-Alexis Perez
Modified: 2013-09-13 01:05 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Yves-Alexis Perez 2009-08-12 16:26:48 UTC
Please describe the problem:
Hey,

I notice, while doing the packaging of 2.27.90 for Debian, a kind-of strange situation wrt. .so objects in evolution.

There were already a libevolution-mail-shared.so shipped with evolution, now there is a libevolution-cal-shared.so. Both are shipped in /usr/lib/evolution/2.28 (well, depending on libdir, but still) but the scheme is not consistent:

lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 33 Aug 11 20:38 /usr/lib/evolution/2.28/libevolution-mail-shared.so -> libevolution-mail-shared.so.0.0.0
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 868320 Aug 11 17:52 /usr/lib/evolution/2.28/libevolution-cal-shared.so
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 645384 Aug 11 17:52 /usr/lib/evolution/2.28/libevolution-mail-shared.so.0.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 33 Aug 11 20:38 /usr/lib/evolution/2.28/libevolution-mail-shared.so.0 -> libevolution-mail-shared.so.0.0.0

libevolution-mail-shared.so is symlink to the “versioned” version, while the libevolution-cal-shared.so is not. Shouldn't this be consistent, so either both have the versionning, or neither?

Thanks and sorry if it's completely off topic…

Cheers,
--
Yves-Alexis

Steps to reproduce:
1. 
2. 
3. 


Actual results:


Expected results:


Does this happen every time?


Other information:
Comment 1 Matthew Barnes 2009-08-12 16:40:38 UTC
Yes, it was mistakenly shipped as a module.  Use the patch in bug #591414.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 591414 ***