Op donderdag 26 januari 2012 15:34:32 schreef Colin Law: > On 25 January 2012 16:54, Colin Law <clan...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > It seems I have been barking up the wrong tree here. I have built the > > trunk from git and it runs fine, without setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH. > > Moreover if I remove libgnome.so it still runs fine. I have checked > > that the only instance of libgnome.so on the system is the one in > > /usr/lib/libglade/2.0. So the question appears to be not why can the > > 2.4 build not find the library at run time, but why is it looking for > > it? > > Not knowing where to go from here I tried the base of the 2.4 branch > and was surprised to find that it also fails. As I said above the tip > of trunk is ok. Now starting a bisect on the trunk to see where the > problem went away on the trunk. Obviously it is going to take a > little time as I am doing a clean build at each one. > > If anyone had a brainwave it would be helpful. To summarize the problem. > Building the 2.4 branch on Ubuntu 12.04 I find that when gnucash is > run it cannot find libnome.so unless I set LD_LIBRARY_PATH > Building the tip of trunk does not have this problem. > Building the base of 2.4 branch *does* have the problem so something > has changed on the trunk since then to fix it. > The problem is not seen on Ubuntu 11.10 > Additionally you could also check what the result is of ldd /usr/lib/libglade/2.0/libgnome.so and if this reports some missing libraries. From how everything is installed, it looks like libglade is dlopening the libraries in /usr/lib/libglade/2.0/ manually on demand, which might fail if libgnome.so is missing some dependencies. I don't know for sure, just thinking out loud.
By the way, on Fedora 16, libgnome.so is installed via libgnomeui. Geert _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
