Had a bit of trouble earlier today upgrading from Slackware 9.1 to
Slackware 10.0.

I followed the instructions given in "UPGRADE.TXT" as usual. When
finished, I rebooted the machine but noticed Apache hadn't come up
with the reboot. Figuring the old configuration file was to blame, I
began the process of running "/etc/rc.d/rc.apache start", observing
and fixing the error, then running "/etc/rc.d/rc.apache start", wash,
rinse, repeat, until I got the following error message:

root@shallowhal:~/slackware/slackware-10.0/slackware#
/etc/rc.d/rc.apache start
Syntax error on line 14 of /etc/apache/mod_ssl.conf:
Cannot load /usr/libexec/libssl.so into server:
/usr/libexec/libssl.so: undefined symbol: dbm_firstkey
/usr/sbin/apachectl start: httpd could not be started

After a bit of prodding I came to the following realization:

Slackware 9.1 contains an update with the package
"mod_ssl-2.8.18_1.3.31-i486-1". So does Slackware 10.0. But, they
are distinctly different packages! Oh, they seem to be about the same
version of mod_ssl, but the Slackware 9.1 is a backport of
sorts...linked against Slackware 9.1 libraries, and with files located
in version-specific locations. Case in point the file "libssl.so"
which is located at "/usr/libexec" in Slackware 9.1 but
"/usr/libexec/apache" in Slackware 10.0.

Consequently, doing something like the following during your upgrade:

bash# upgradepkg --install-new /root/slackware/*/*.tgz

will leave at least mod_ssl (and I suspect several other packages as
well, not sure) at their old versions. Eww.

Anyone else run into this sort of issue? Are these files supposed to
be named this way, or should the package be named
"mod_ssl-2.8.18_1.3.31-i486-2"? Additionally, I think this can be
fixed by running something like:

bash# upgradepkg --reinstall /root/slackware/*/*.tgz

after you've done your initial upgrade as per "UPGRADE.TXT", but I'm
not 100% sure (testing this as we speak).

Jeremy