SUMMARY: Re: libC oddity, maybe?

From: Adam and Christine Levin (
Date: Fri Apr 07 2000 - 11:28:13 CDT

Original question:

On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Adam and Christine Levin wrote:
> I've got a problem with one of my developers (heh, don't we all :) ).
> Solaris 2.6.
> In /usr/lib, is a symlink to the correct version of
>[.y]. Well, he's using C++, not C, so he's looking for
> (capital C). It's there, but there's and Naturally,
> we should be using .5, because it's a later version, but why isn't there a
> symlink from to, and should there be? He's having
> trouble compiling because apparently the compiler is looking for just
> without a version.
> Any thoughts? I generally use Perl, and if I need a compiled language I
> use C, never C++, so I'm not sure where the trouble is.

One person said I should create the symlink, a couple said they haven't
seen the problem.

Special thanks to Casper Dik <> who hit the nail
on the head. The symlink is already there, in /opt/SUNWspro/lib. The
developer was using /usr/lib directly. Once he changed to using
/opt/SUNWspro/lib, everything was fine.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 23:14:06 CDT