[procps] Re: procps changes

  • From: Jim Warner <james.warner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: procps@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 06:48:29 -0500

On Sep 22, 2011, at 5:07 AM, Sami Kerola wrote:

>> I don't know if it can or should be automated, but after my "install" I 
>> needed to manually update ldconfig for the dynamic library default location.
> Something is wrong. Could you tell what you moved and to where.
> PREFIX+"anything here" is interesting.

After my patches and a default 'make' then 'sudo make install', the programs 
ended up in /usr/local/bin and the library in /usr/local/lib.  But the 
linker/loader had no way of knowing that location.  So when I attempted to run 
/usr/local/bin/top, I got the following error message:
  "error while loading shared libraries: libproc-3.3.0.so..."

That necessitated using ldconfig to update /etc/ld.so.cache.  It may have been 
possible to embed a relative or absolute library location within the 
executable, perhaps via -rpath, but that's beyond my current skill level.

>> Lastly, do you think that libproc-3.3.0 should also carry the "ng" 
>> identifier?  Albert's version may shortly be at the same level and that 
>> would avoid a name collision.
> I am not good enough programmer to advice how to deal library
> versioning without having issues. I hope someone from distributions
> side could ask local lib guru to advice how to rename libraries
> without havoc. I'm sure this has been done earlier, but I've never
> done such. That's why I kept everything as close how things where, so
> that compatibility would be as easy as possible.

Maybe I'll try a rename locally.  I'll let you know the results.

>> p.s. It looks like you did a very thorough job of updating all references to 
>> procps as well as the documentation and runtime messages dealing with bug 
>> reporting.
> Thanks. I read that as a; the patch set is not hopeless and may result
> to a merge after rigor testing and careful consideration what to do
> with lib release number.

It doesn't look hopeless to me.  I'll be interested in Craig's or Jan's 
impression.  First however, with your knowledge of autotools, please check if 
your ng branch meets the requirements documented in:

Or you could download it from:

I'm pretty sure that at least 'make clean' is somewhat deficient.


Other related posts: