Building gnucash on Ubuntu 12.04 Alpha

[Colin Law]

On 26 January 2012 16:58, Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at telenet.be> wrote:
> Op donderdag 26 januari 2012 15:34:32 schreef Colin Law:
>> On 25 January 2012 16:54, Colin Law <clanlaw at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > It seems I have been barking up the wrong tree here.  I have built the
>> > trunk from git and it runs fine, without setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
>> > Moreover if I remove libgnome.so it still runs fine.  I have checked
>> > that the only instance of libgnome.so on the system is the one in
>> > /usr/lib/libglade/2.0.  So the question appears to be not why can the
>> > 2.4 build not find the library at run time, but why is it looking for
>> > it?
>>
>> Not knowing where to go from here I tried the base of the 2.4 branch
>> and was surprised to find that it also fails.  As I said above the tip
>> of trunk is ok.  Now starting a bisect on the trunk to see where the
>> problem went away on the trunk.  Obviously it is going to take a
>> little time as I am doing a clean build at each one.
>>
>> If anyone had a brainwave it would be helpful.  To summarize the problem.
>> Building the 2.4 branch on Ubuntu 12.04 I find that when gnucash is
>> run it cannot find libnome.so unless I set LD_LIBRARY_PATH
>> Building the tip of trunk does not have this problem.
>> Building the base of 2.4 branch *does* have the problem so something
>> has changed on the trunk since then to fix it.
>> The problem is not seen on Ubuntu 11.10
>>
> Additionally you could also check what the result is of
> ldd /usr/lib/libglade/2.0/libgnome.so
> and if this reports some missing libraries. From how everything is installed,
> it looks like libglade is dlopening the libraries in /usr/lib/libglade/2.0/
> manually on demand, which might fail if libgnome.so is missing some
> dependencies. I don't know for sure, just thinking out loud.
>
> By the way, on Fedora 16, libgnome.so is installed via libgnomeui.

libgnome.so is installed via libgnomeui-0
ldd shows a big list of dependencies but is not showing anything
obviously wrong.  Would it be obvious if something were missing?

Colin