Difference between revisions of "Template:FAQ:Compiling 03"
(mention package name change for elfutils) |
m (Latest FAQ revision - preparing for 5.5 release) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
This has been seen in a number of guises over the years - most | This has been seen in a number of guises over the years - most | ||
commonly on Linux systems (although the problem may also occur | commonly on Linux systems (although the problem may also occur | ||
Latest revision as of 16:05, 19 July 2009
This has been seen in a number of guises over the years - most commonly on Linux systems (although the problem may also occur elsewhere). A typical installation may not always include the full set of library links required for building the Net-SNMP software.
This problem can usually be fixed by installing the missing packages (typically the development version of a package that is already there).
Examples of this that we have come across include:
-lelf elfutils-devel (later renamed to elfutils-libelf-devel)
-lbz2 bzip2-devel
-lselinux libselinux-devel
-lcrypto openssl/openssl-devel
-lbeecrypt libbeecrypt/beecrypt/beecrypt-devel.
These are the names of the RedHat/Fedora RPMs. Other distributions or O/S's may use different names, but the basic idea should be the same.
If the compilation is complaining about a missing .so file, then an alternative quick fix is to add the missing symbolic link, using something like:
ln -s libelf.so.1 /usr/lib/libelf.so
giving the appropriate generic library name from the error message, and the correct number for whichever version of this library you have installed.
If the compilation is complaining about a .la file, then you should install the relevant development package, as listed above.
