ld.so.1: fatal ImportError: ld.so.1 No such file or directory

[o'seally]

Ruud de Jong <ruud.de.jong at consunet.nl> wrote in message news:<405ad3b9$0$41762$5fc3050 at dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>...
> o'seally schreef:
> 
> > i checked my original posting again. the word 'python' appears a
> > couple of times in it, so python is indeed being referred to. read my
> > original posting slowly/carefully again, you'll see it.
> 
> I did not claim that python was not referred to -- I said that
> that was my first impression, as you could have read in my
> first reaction. No need to read slowly or carefully, you cannot
> really miss it -- unless you want to.



==>it was not in response to a problem, making it more
==>difficult to discover the intention of the post;

google/usenet groups are Not only for *solving problems* or nagging
people about this and then that, and then that, etc. newsgroups are
also useful for sharing information Openly. always bear in mind that
what you find useless and totally unnecessary can come out to be the
most useful advice/opinion for *someone else*, ..cuz even if it might
be infested with a lot of junk, it might contain just One Word of
advice that someone has been needing for many years!
the intention of this post is therefore simple:.. should someone hit
this problem and start searching on google/teoma/etc, he is very
likely to be interested in any place/page that contains the words
equivalent to those in the error he saw. most pages DON'T have enough
detailed info about this error. check it out yourself, try and search
for pages with Detailed info about this specific error and you'll find
very few.

many times even when LD_LIBRARY_PATH is set **and exported** this
problem will still manifest. check the posts around and you'll find
many people that say that they **Have** set and exported
LD_LIBRARY_PATH and it gave no luck. the reason is because it's hard
to tell when ld is running and calling/loading many .so files which in
turn load more .so files ..it's hard to track whether this variable is
up-to-date in all these calls. in fact, many times the updated
LD_LIBRARY_PATH does Not seem to maintain its updated value through
nested/stacked calls that all result from ld's first run/call.


==>you needed over 100 lines of text to provide this solution;

of course i need over 100 lines. does this mean those who benefit from
my solution will have to type a bash/unix script of 100 lines? ..No
no, they'll simply create symbolic links. but then why did i Not just
type one line and say "create symbolic links" ?  well, many newbies
Don't necessarily have the in-depth knowledge of doing this
neatly/smoothly. some of them would ask me ...symbolic links to what?
many developers are Not sys admins and therefore they may Not be that
quick/up-to-speed with symbolic links. i realize i Can't cater for
every layman, but at least i should go as low/grassroot as i can.


==>the liberal use of CAPITALS (which gives your post
==>a rather spam-like appearance);

i apologize for my liberal use of caps, sorry for the liberal use of
caps, i simply had to ensure that words like *not*, *can't*, etc are
Not easily skipped by those fast readers.  but a person who has spent
nights battling with an ld problem will consider anything that seems
to talk about the error he's battling with. he'll try anything to get
that error fixed, and he'll keep searching even in spam-like places.
well, at least it **appears spam-like**, it is Not quite spam.


==>Duh. This is essentially identical to the solutions
==>that have been offered time and again whenever this or
==>a similar problem is reported.

once again read my post slowly/carefully. the advice about
LD_LIBRARY_PATH is Not what my opinion is centered around. i clearly
stated at the beginning of it that it is someone else's opinion (John
Hunter's opinion). there is a place that's clearly marked as "my
opinion" in addition to John's opinion. my opinion is centered around
symbolic links. now i want you to find out (search the net) and
discover for yourself how many posts are *identical* to my opinion. to
your suprise, you will Not find many. Do it now.  ..on the other hand,
talking about identicals ..you'd be surprised to find out how many
places on the net have an **Identical** copy of the unix man pages,
you'll be truly amazed :-)


==>Be aware that symbolic links make the files visible to
==>*all* applications -- you may not always want that, bla bla bla.

once again in my original post i said ...
as a final-FINAL Note: i'm not responsible for any files that get
deleted or that disappear from your system when you use my advice cuz
they way i see it, when u use my advice you're somehow
hacking/overriding your system's config. u do this solely at your own
discretion/risk. you came here without my invitation, and you're
reading this without my invitation either. i did Not send u this info
by email, etc. so just keep me out of it.


==>the digression on irrelevant subjects (why bring 
==>free or open source software in the discussion?)

i did Not bring these into the discussion. they're the most
insignificant words in my post. but why didn't i leave them out then??
..well, i have to use words when i type. what would u say if i said
your liberal use of the word 'appearance' in your reply above is a
digression from this topic to something irrelevant? wouldn't you
quickly turn around and say to me ...the word 'appearance' in your
reply above was simply an insignificant word. but what if i picked out
that specific word and dwelled on it? wouldn't you find me
UNbelievable? well, man you have to use words when you type/post. are
you aware that even the word 'you' can be isolated and criticized as a
digression by anyone who reads your post and *chooses* to do so.
_________________________________________________
Moses Motlhale - Solutions Architect
24th Century Solutions, South Africa.