Rollback compatibility version of libraries on Mac OS X Rollback compatibility version of libraries on Mac OS X unix unix

Rollback compatibility version of libraries on Mac OS X


Excuse me if I am barking up the wrong tree, but from what I can tell Sundials is at version 2.4 (with the individual libraries at 2.6)? https://computation.llnl.gov/casc/sundials/download/download.html. Have you tried compiling from the sources here?

I just compiled and installed on my Mac Pro running 10.6.7 with no problems! You need to configure using the following in order to install the .dylib otherwise it just generates .la and .a

./configure --enable-shared

I now have the following:

w125-244:sundials-2.4.0 stevemoss$ ls -al /usr/local/lib/libsundials_cvode*-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  staff    4136 28 Apr 16:07 /usr/local/lib/libsundials_cvode.1.0.0.dyliblrwxr-xr-x  1 root  staff      29 28 Apr 16:07 /usr/local/lib/libsundials_cvode.1.dylib -> libsundials_cvode.1.0.0.dylib-rw-r--r--  1 root  staff  512704 28 Apr 16:07 /usr/local/lib/libsundials_cvode.alrwxr-xr-x  1 root  staff      29 28 Apr 16:07 /usr/local/lib/libsundials_cvode.dylib -> libsundials_cvode.1.0.0.dylib-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  staff     878 28 Apr 16:07 /usr/local/lib/libsundials_cvode.la-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  staff    4136 28 Apr 16:07 /usr/local/lib/libsundials_cvodes.2.0.0.dyliblrwxr-xr-x  1 root  staff      30 28 Apr 16:07 /usr/local/lib/libsundials_cvodes.2.dylib -> libsundials_cvodes.2.0.0.dylib-rw-r--r--  1 root  staff  926048 28 Apr 16:07 /usr/local/lib/libsundials_cvodes.alrwxr-xr-x  1 root  staff      30 28 Apr 16:07 /usr/local/lib/libsundials_cvodes.dylib -> libsundials_cvodes.2.0.0.dylib-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  staff     885 28 Apr 16:07 /usr/local/lib/libsundials_cvodes.la

and

w125-244:sundials-2.4.0 stevemoss$ otool -L /usr/local/lib/libsundials_cvode.dylib/usr/local/lib/libsundials_cvode.dylib:    /usr/local/lib/libsundials_cvode.1.dylib (compatibility version 2.0.0, current version 2.0.0)    /usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 125.2.10)

Also, perhaps a symlink might have been better than an mv in your example?