Link not created for libprofiler.so on Ubuntu about gperftools

[GoogleCodeExporter]

} Fixed by adding
}   sudo ln -s /var/lib/libprofiler.so.0.0.0 /var/lib/libprofiler.so

Actually, it looks to me like we're doing the right thing already by
providing libprofiler.so.0 and libprofiler.so.0.0.0.  This is what the
deb-packaging tool does; many packages provide just those two names.
To take a random example, when I do an ls /usr/lib on my Ubunbu
machine, I see
   libcairo.so.2.2.4
   libcairo.so.2@
but no libcairo.so.

I don't know much about shared library versioning, but this suggests
to me that the dl resolver should be able to find libprofiler.so.0,
and not need libprofiler.so.  As another test, when I run ldd on a
binary I've linked with libprofiler, it talks about
"/usr/lib/libprofiler.so.0", not "/usr/lib/libprofiler.so".

I'll see if I can figure out more about shared library naming, but in
the meantime maybe you can look to see if there's something unique
about your system that may be accounting for this.

Can you add to the bug report the exact commands you ran, and the
exact output you got from g++?

Original comment by [email protected] on 26 May 2007 at 11:00

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Usually .so files are provided by -devel packages (at least on my Fedora 
distribution):
(#:~)- rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libk5crypto.so
krb5-devel-1.5-7
(#:~)- rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libk5crypto.so.3
krb5-libs-1.5-7
(#:~)- objdump -p /usr/lib64/libk5crypto.so.3.0 | grep SONAME
  SONAME      libk5crypto.so.3

Original comment by [email protected] on 28 May 2007 at 5:05

[GoogleCodeExporter]

That's true, and we do have libprofile.so in our -devel package.  That makes 
sense --
if you're compiling an application using our libraries, then you should be 
using the
-devel version of the library.  The non-devel library is useful if you're 
installing
another project that depends on, say libtcmalloc -- then that other library will
depend on the non-devel google-perftools package.  If you're installing this 
package
to work with it yourself, you'll probably need the -devel version.

Original comment by [email protected] on 29 May 2007 at 4:18

• Changed state: Invalid