On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:54, Craig White <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> # ls -l /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Oct 13 18:38 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 ->
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 733168 Jan 8 2007 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5.0.7
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 804212 Oct 23 10:09 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 936908 May 26 15:16 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.8
The libstdc++.so.6 is dated October 23rd, less than one month ago and
newer than libstdc++.so.6.0.8. It seems like it was replaced after the
RPM was installed.
> # rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6
> # rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.8
You can check the date the RPM was installed with 'rpm -qi
You can also use 'rpm --verify libstdc++-4.1.2-42.el5' to check if the
files match the RPM database, I suspect 'rpm --verify ...' will tell
you that libstdc++.so.6 does not match the version that was installed
with the RPM.
> so my inclination is to remove the /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 and create a
> symlink to libstdc++.so.6.26 to replace it. Does this make sense?
Makes sense to me.
> What about the libxml2.so which apparently is there because of the devel
Same date on the offending file. Do you have any idea of what did you
install that day?
> Is this a CentOS packaging issue ?
Probably not, it's probably something that was installed from source
and not from RPM.
CentOS mailing list