From: Noel Butler Date: January 31 2011 10:50am Subject: Re: libmysqlclient.so.16 no version information available List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/224254 Message-Id: <1296471035.14791.18.camel@tardis> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-ufCeL4kEeAA4jtS4jiX3" --=-ufCeL4kEeAA4jtS4jiX3 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-JxEmZ2b8tTBW9HLyQ8t7" --=-JxEmZ2b8tTBW9HLyQ8t7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 11:42 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > Have you rebuilt all depending applications AFTER > rebuild of mysql 5.5? >=20 yes, built 5.5 a month ago, only today rebuilt postfix (upgraded 2.7.2 to 2.8.0) This is a common problem, google fu indicates others have same problem, some of them claim reverting to 5.5.7 corrects this error, there was major changes from 5.5.7 to 5.5.8, but I don't see the sense in downgrading to what was regarded as unstable mysql version to correct it. just as well this is on a dev testbed and not production, more of a reason production will stay on 5.1 I think. > BTW: > I also make my own source-builds with optimized flags but not dumb > configure & make, the better way is to build clean distro-packages > and install them with the package-manager, this way you would I totally disagree. but thats the beauty about open source, each to their own. when there is only one version of the lib installed it should not be an issue, I've been building tarballs for 20 years, so do understand how the OS works and how to best use configure :) > Am 31.01.2011 11:38, schrieb Noel Butler: > > On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 10:52 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> You need mysql-5.1 compat-libs package > >> or rebuild applications against 5.5 > >> > >> for feddora/rhel type "compat-mysql51" in google > >> there are packages from remi since he builds 5.5 > >> > >> this is nothing new and was the same with 5.1 > >> while applications was linked against 5.0 > >> > >=20 > > HUH? These are all source builds, I did not have this problem previous= ly, I don't use package maintainers versions. > > I have source builds of mysql, postfix, dovecot, apache, php, bind - pr= etty much all the common main daemons, i > > don't trust distro butchers , err, i mean maintainers, for these critic= al apps. > >=20 > > thanks anyway. >=20 > >> Am 31.01.2011 09:24, schrieb Noel Butler: > >> >=20 > >> > Arg! This abomination 5.5 is causing more headaches, > >> >=20 > >> > postfix will not run, I've heard dovecot may not either, amongst oth= ers > >> >=20 > >> >=20 > >> > postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version information avai= lable (required by postcon > >> > /etc/init.d/postfix start > >> > * Starting Postfix Mail Transport Agent postfix = postconf: > >> > /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version information available (req= uired by postconf) > >> > /usr/sbin/postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version inform= ation available (required by /usr/sbin/postconf) > >> > /usr/sbin/postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version inform= ation available (required by /usr/sbin/postconf) > >> > = [fail] > >> > *sigh* Why was this removed, or is this another side affect of that= amazing winblozy P.O.S cmake? > >> > >=20 >=20 --=-JxEmZ2b8tTBW9HLyQ8t7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 11:42 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:

Have you rebuilt all depending applications AFTER
rebuild of mysql 5.5?

yes, built 5.5 a month ago, only today rebuilt postfix (upgraded 2.7.2 to 2= .8.0)
This is a common problem, google fu indicates others have same problem, som= e of them claim reverting to 5.5.7 corrects this error, there was major cha= nges from 5.5.7 to 5.5.8, but I don't see the sense in downgrading to what = was regarded as unstable mysql version to correct it. just as well this is = on a dev testbed and not production, more of a reason production will stay = on 5.1 I think.

BTW:
I also make my own source-builds with optimized flags but not dumb
configure & make, the better way is to build clean distro-packages
and install them with the package-manager, this way you would

I totally disagree. but thats the beauty about open source, each to their o= wn.

when there is only one version of the lib installed it should not be an is= sue, I've been building tarballs for 20 years, so do understand how t= he OS works and how to best use configure :)

Am 31.01.2011 11:38, schrieb Noel Butler:
> On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 10:52 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> You need mysql-5.1 compat-libs package
>> or rebuild applications against 5.5
>>
>> for feddora/rhel type "compat-mysql51" in google
>> there are packages from remi since he builds 5.5
>>
>> this is nothing new and was the same with 5.1
>> while applications was linked against 5.0
>>
>=20
> HUH? These are all source builds,  I did not have this problem previou=
sly, I don't use package maintainers versions.
> I have source builds of mysql, postfix, dovecot, apache, php, bind - p=
retty much all the common main daemons, i
> don't trust distro butchers , err, i mean maintainers, for these criti=
cal apps.
>=20
> thanks anyway.

>> Am 31.01.2011 09:24, schrieb Noel Butler:
>> >=20
>> > Arg!  This abomination  5.5 is causing more headaches,
>> >=20
>> > postfix will not run, I've heard dovecot may not either, amon=
gst others
>> >=20
>> >=20
>> > postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version informati=
on available (required by postcon
>> > /etc/init.d/postfix start
>> > * Starting Postfix Mail Transport Agent postfix              =
                                 postconf:
>> > /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version information availab=
le (required by postconf)
>> > /usr/sbin/postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version=
 information available (required by /usr/sbin/postconf)
>> > /usr/sbin/postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version=
 information available (required by /usr/sbin/postconf)
>> >                                                              =
                           [fail]
>> > *sigh*  Why was this removed, or is this another side affect =
of that amazing winblozy P.O.S cmake?
>>
>=20

--=-JxEmZ2b8tTBW9HLyQ8t7-- --=-ufCeL4kEeAA4jtS4jiX3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAABAgAGBQJNRpP6AAoJECg/hgl/0DbH94EH/2zL1aMkfjLCn1+pl0uhUCrz nGVvlVMOLzFMyY2PCu0U/AF/03jzOLv0/grYQIZ9Wk4VLRRRCctD48c9oX17H9Xi pRrr9Mo4t14sDmZlJvoDvYyDEIuSFEiS2+wQapFg1sry26FWAdkmQHKLJw5R4C39 kyy0k7oFsQ5fU7EhX1wg/wNR7wyi6gS884JLPN6oorNfZu+ugOfOZtVig3WtMcPb vdXOTAVDMdO6PwH73XCivcPh6tYyFSp8zhWFHslIsAc0t8H4RwREaln2RtKoDnHr QYmhNZTLS3dUN899kMYIy8c96LnWCwNTxbmbYc91foI6SHQEPDQJtw43OeS/7gM= =Wd+s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-ufCeL4kEeAA4jtS4jiX3--