It wasn't a problem, just a comment about something that looked
odd. If the .a is not needed by the executables, then to avoid
cluttering the filesystem it shouldn't be installed.  Same thing
with the library symlinks, if they aren't used, why create them?
   It's probably just historical cruft, but it is confusing to
those of us that aren't familiar enough with the code to know
what's needed and what isn't.

Thanks for the clarification,
Frank

Jean-Louis Martineau wrote:
> The static library "*.a" are not needed at execution time.
> All executable link with the version numbered dynamic library, the 
> symlink is not use by amanda.
> 
> Can you give more detail of your problem?
> an `ldd` of your executable
> an `ls -l` of the library.
> 
> Jean-Louis
> 
> Frank Smith wrote:
>> While building 2.5.2p1 to upgrade a 2.4.5 version, I ran across an
>> oddity running 'make install'.  I had built both versions with the
>> '--with suffixes' option.  Evidently that option doesn't work on
>> the static libraries that are built, as it just creates the .a files
>> without a suffix and the install happily overwrites the previous
>> versions of the libraries with a new one.
>>   Also, the .so files are created with the version suffix, but the
>> install creates symlinks pointing to the new version, which seems wrong
>> since the executables are not automatically symlinked when installed,
>> causing a seemingly broken installation by default, as the old .a
>> libraries are no longer there to support the old version.
>>   Or have I missed something?
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>   
> 


-- 
Frank Smith                                      fsmith AT hoovers DOT com
Sr. Systems Administrator                       Voice: 512-374-4673
Hoover's Online                                   Fax: 512-374-4501