On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Mike Christensen <mike@kitchenpc.com> writes:
>> Yup that's exactly what I did.. I'm on 10.04, which doesn't have
>> libuuid 1.6 in the software repository, go figure..
>
> Oh ... we're in package-naming hell, is where we are. Poking around
> some more on my Fedora 13 box, I find I have two different, similarly
> named packages:
>
> $ rpm -qa | grep uuid
> uuid-1.6.1-11.fc13.x86_64
> libuuid-2.17.2-8.fc13.x86_64
> uuid-devel-1.6.1-11.fc13.x86_64
> libuuid-devel-2.17.2-8.fc13.x86_64
> $ rpm -ql uuid-1.6.1-11.fc13.x86_64
> /usr/bin/uuid
> /usr/lib64/libossp-uuid.so.16
> /usr/lib64/libossp-uuid.so.16.0.21
> ... and some doc files ...
> $ rpm -ql libuuid-2.17.2-8.fc13.x86_64
> /lib64/libuuid.so.1
> /lib64/libuuid.so.1.3.0
>
> The file you actually want, on Fedora (and, I bet, on Ubuntu),
> is libossp-uuid.so.16. But apparently EDB's package was built on some
> platform where uuid's library is installed as just "libuuid.so.16".
> Maybe they used a homebuilt copy instead of an official platform
> distribution?
>
> If you have a libossp-uuid.so.16, you might try symlinking libuuid.so.16
> to that instead of carrying a separate file.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
So now what you're saying is if it's not broke, fix it till it is :)
