james d. beard

I was looking at files in consequence of some updates,
and noticed libpopt.so.0 pointed to libpopt.so.0.0.0
but there was no libpopt.so.0.0 pointing to
libpopt.so.0.0.0

It struck me there should be one, so su to root and
create a symbolic link. But then I decided to see if
there were other similar omissions. /lib library names
seem to mostly follow a different convention, and
libdbus-1.so had the full complement of pointers.

But /usr/lib had 333 *so.0, 206 *so.0.0.0, and only 4
*so.0.0. Huh? Why are there so few instances of
*so.0.0 ? Is this normal?

Cheers!

jim b.

--
Unix is not user-unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.

dan espen

"James D. Beard" <jim.beard@verizon.net> writes:

I don't think you accomplished anything.
Nothing on your system would be looking for libpopt.so.0.0.


Shared library version numbers are changed when the new version is
not compatible with a prior version.

Spending a few minutes with Google, I don't see any rules.