Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

When trying to do a subversion command i get the following error after' upgrading Apache:

svnadmin: error while loading shared libraries: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

If i run : ldd 'which svn' It show the following as not found: => not found

When I look to the folder it should be in i find that with the upgrade it has changed to: which use to be

Can I tell SVN to look for the new file name?

share|improve this question
What distribution are you running? – Caleb Apr 14 '11 at 20:15

It's not a matter of telling it where to find a new file name, it's a matter of having it compiled against the right version of the file to start with.

It looks like you need to upgrade some more software. Apache upgraded some libraries that other programs use, so you need versions of the other programs that use the new library versions.

I suggest starting by just doing an update of everything on the system using your distributions package manager although it should have already taken care of this for you. Maybe a full system update will help clean up the loose ends.

If you compiled and installed apache manually, you will also need to do so for any software that depends on it such as svn so that they are all compiled against the same libraries.

share|improve this answer

The error message is tricky since it neglects to tell you that what it really wants is the a particular architecture version of the lib from apr-util RPM. This can be confirmed by running strace svn --in my case it revealed the lib64 version was missing. To solve it on an old CentOS 5.8 box, I did sudo yum install apr-util but for your distro, it might be different. Note with bemusement that after that I had two versions of apr-util listed, with no readily apparent clue that one was 32-bit and the other 64-bit.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.