[Sean Kelly <S.Kelly@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 14:51:51 -0700, Guy Harris said:

> On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 01:39:02PM +0100, Sean Kelly wrote:
>  > 	Apologies.  Using "tee" didn't capture the std.error by the
>  > looks of it.  I've used > and 2> this time and attached the output
>  > from make.
>  
>  What do
>  
>  	ls -l /usr/lib/libz.*
>  
>  and
>  
>  	ls -l /usr/local/lib/libz.*
>  
>  and
>  
>  	ls -l /usr/local/X11R6/lib/libz.*
>  
>  report?

   294: ls -l /usr/lib/libz.*
-rw-r--r--   1 root     root        65536 Jul 13  1999 /usr/lib/libz.a
lrwxrwxrwx   1 root	root	       13 Aug 30 16:53
/usr/lib/libz.so -> libz.so.1.1.3*
lrwxrwxrwx   1 root	root	       13 Aug 30 16:53
/usr/lib/libz.so.1 -> libz.so.1.1.3*
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root     root        62776 Jul 13  1999 /usr/lib/libz.so.1.1.3*

   295: ls -l /usr/local/lib/libz.*
/bin/ls: /usr/local/lib/libz.*: No such file or directory

   296: ls -l /usr/local/X11R6/lib/libz.*
-rw-r--r--   1 root     root        56558 Sep  1 17:26 0libz.a


>  If more than one of them reports that there's a "libz.a" or "libz.so" or
>  "libz.so.<number>" file, the problem is probably that you have two or
>  more different versions of -lz installed on your machine, one or more of
>  which may be an old version without "gzgets()" and the ne or more of
>  which may be a newer version that has it; the test done by the configure
>  script might be finding the newer version whilst the actual link may be
>  finding the older version.

	So, it looks like there are two libz.a's - each with a
different file size.

	Is the solution to remove one of these and see if things
break?	The one in /usr/local/X11R6/lib will have been installed from
the XFree86 4.0.1 source I assume, and the one outside
/usr/local/X11R6/lib would have been installed from the system CD
(Slackware Linux 7.1).	Which would been the newest?

	Thanks,

-- 
Sean Kelly <S.Kelly@xxxxxxxxx>