Red Hat 6.4 can't install filePro 5.7.3 - missing libodbc.so.1

[Mike Schwartz]

(comments interspersed) 

> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:31:10AM -0400, Mike Schwartz thus spoke:
> >      I installed what I thought were some of the most relevant RPMs,
> >      including a couple that said "ODBC Development on them).  All the
> >      RPMs said "x86_64".  I rebooted and then tried reinstalling
filepro,
> >      but it still balked at the installation.
> 
> *cringe* Seriously?  You do -not- need to reboot after installing
libraries.
> You simply run `ldconfig` to refresh the dynamic linker's knowledge of
what
> is available and where.

     Yes, I did run ldconfig after installing some of the libraries.  At
other times, it was more convenient just to reboot the server because I was
rearranging equipment and so forth.

> 
> >      I was told to look for a library named "/usr/lib/libodbc.so.1",
> >      and if it is not there, then I don't have the correct Unix ODBC
> >      libraries installed.  All of the ODBC RPM's I installed seemed to
> >      have put their libraries into /usr/lib64, so I presume I'm only
> >      loading 64-bit libODBC libraries.
> >
> >      Any suggestions?
> 
> On CentOS 6.4 (the downstream carbon copy of RH 6.4) 64-bit,
> /usr/lib/libodbc.so.2 is provided by the unixODBC package.  There is no
.so.1
> versioned library.  Sounds like fP-Tech linked against an old version.
> 
> You could try installing it and symlink from .so.2 to .so.1, then running
> ldconfig.  I give that...eh, about a 5% chance of actually solving the
problem,
> since APIs usually change between major library versions, not to mention
> symbol differences in the library itself that will probably collide like
mad.
> But it's your best shot without getting fP-Tech to recompile on this
platform,
> or without finding out -exactly- which major version of UnixODBC they
built
> against and rolling a parallel install.  Actually, if the symlink route
fails
> (almost guaranteed to, but I'd try anyway), doing a parallel install of an
> older UnixODBC is probably the sanest thing to do.
> Just make sure you toss /usr/local/lib into /etc/ld.so.conf and then run
> ldconfig after building and installing it.

    Yes, apparently symlinking worked (ln -s) buy linking (just ln) did not.
I'm not sure why the difference.  so.2 was in /usr/lib64, but /usr/lib
resides on the same file system.   I will research this later.  Too busy
right now.  I'm 2 days behind on this job...

    I apologize to everybody for not writing down which RPM's I did end up
loading, but I probably loaded more RPM's than necessary, or not necessarily
the best RPM's to fix the aborts. 
 
> The biggest hassle in this is really going to be finding out what version
of it
> compiles and links to .so.1 instead of .so.2.  The rest is pretty trivial.
> 
> mark->
> --
> Audio panton, cogito singularis.
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list