[opensuse-factory] Lightworks requires libcrypto.so.10 file for Leap 42.3
Hi all, Installing Lightworks 14 prompts for libcrypto.so.10 in order for it to install. Where can I find this package? Cheers! Roman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 2017-08-29 00:10, Roman Bysh wrote:
Hi all,
Installing Lightworks 14 prompts for libcrypto.so.10 in order for it to install.
Where can I find this package?
On Fedora or so. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon 28 Aug 2017 06:10:05 PM CDT, Roman Bysh wrote:
Hi all,
Installing Lightworks 14 prompts for libcrypto.so.10 in order for it to install.
Where can I find this package?
Cheers!
Roman Hi Ignore/break and see this post: <https://www.lwks.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=21&id=107893&Itemid=81#140022>
-- Cheers Malcolm °¿° SUSE Knowledge Partner (Linux Counter #276890) openSUSE Leap 42.2 | GNOME 3.20.2 | 4.4.79-18.26-default HP 255 G4 Notebook | A6-6310 X4 @ 1.80 GHz | AMD Radeon R4 up 10 days 19:57, 1 user, load average: 0.35, 0.39, 0.42 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 28/08/17 07:38 PM, Malcolm wrote:
On Mon 28 Aug 2017 06:10:05 PM CDT, Roman Bysh wrote:
Hi all,
Installing Lightworks 14 prompts for libcrypto.so.10 in order for it to install.
Where can I find this package?
Cheers!
Roman Hi Ignore/break and see this post: <https://www.lwks.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=21&id=107893&Itemid=81#140022>
I created a symlink using the command "ln -s /lib64/libcrypto.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libcrypto.so.10" before installing Lightworks. I then forced the installation of Lightworks 14 and it started up right away without any errors. Cheers! Roman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 2017-08-29 23:06, Roman Bysh wrote:
Installing Lightworks 14 prompts for libcrypto.so.10 in order for it to install.
[libcrypto.so.10 is a Fedora file]
Ignore/break and see this post: <https://www.lwks.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=21&id=107893&Itemid=81#140022>
I created a symlink using the command "ln -s /lib64/libcrypto.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libcrypto.so.10" before installing Lightworks. I then forced the installation of Lightworks 14 and it started up right away without any errors.
That's a bit of a gamble. You presume that Fedora's libcrypto.so.10 has the same ABI as openSUSE's libcrypto.so.1.0.0, which could backfire at any time, because neither openSUSE nor Fedora give any such guarantee. At worst, you will have silent data corruption without even about knowing it. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 29/08/17 07:02 PM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Tuesday 2017-08-29 23:06, Roman Bysh wrote:
Installing Lightworks 14 prompts for libcrypto.so.10 in order for it to install.
[libcrypto.so.10 is a Fedora file]
Ignore/break and see this post: <https://www.lwks.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=21&id=107893&Itemid=81#140022>
I created a symlink using the command "ln -s /lib64/libcrypto.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libcrypto.so.10" before installing Lightworks. I then forced the installation of Lightworks 14 and it started up right away without any errors.
That's a bit of a gamble. You presume that Fedora's libcrypto.so.10 has the same ABI as openSUSE's libcrypto.so.1.0.0, which could backfire at any time, because neither openSUSE nor Fedora give any such guarantee. At worst, you will have silent data corruption without even about knowing it.
The symlink for 42.3 and Lightworks 14 works. However, it does not work on Tumbleweed. I just downloaded a Fedora rpm that provides libcrypto.so.10. -- Cheers! Roman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:12:47PM -0400, Roman Bysh wrote:
On 29/08/17 07:02 PM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Tuesday 2017-08-29 23:06, Roman Bysh wrote:
Installing Lightworks 14 prompts for libcrypto.so.10 in order for it to install.
[libcrypto.so.10 is a Fedora file]
Ignore/break and see this post: <https://www.lwks.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=21&id=107893&Itemid=81#140022>
I created a symlink using the command "ln -s /lib64/libcrypto.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libcrypto.so.10" before installing Lightworks. I then forced the installation of Lightworks 14 and it started up right away without any errors.
That's a bit of a gamble. You presume that Fedora's libcrypto.so.10 has the same ABI as openSUSE's libcrypto.so.1.0.0, which could backfire at any time, because neither openSUSE nor Fedora give any such guarantee. At worst, you will have silent data corruption without even about knowing it.
The symlink for 42.3 and Lightworks 14 works. However, it does not work on Tumbleweed. I just downloaded a Fedora rpm that provides libcrypto.so.10.
For completeness ... Not clear where this libcrypto.so.10 is from, but I think an older libressl version? What a mess. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 2017-09-01 08:33, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:12:47PM -0400, Roman Bysh wrote:
On 29/08/17 07:02 PM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Tuesday 2017-08-29 23:06, Roman Bysh wrote:
Installing Lightworks 14 prompts for libcrypto.so.10 in order for it to install.
[libcrypto.so.10 is a Fedora file]
Ignore/break and see this post: <https://www.lwks.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=21&id=107893&Itemid=81#140022>
I created a symlink using the command "ln -s /lib64/libcrypto.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libcrypto.so.10" before installing Lightworks. I then forced the installation of Lightworks 14 and it started up right away without any errors.
That's a bit of a gamble. You presume that Fedora's libcrypto.so.10 has the same ABI as openSUSE's libcrypto.so.1.0.0, which could backfire at any time, because neither openSUSE nor Fedora give any such guarantee. At worst, you will have silent data corruption without even about knowing it.
The symlink for 42.3 and Lightworks 14 works. However, it does not work on Tumbleweed. I just downloaded a Fedora rpm that provides libcrypto.so.10.
For completeness ...
Not clear where this libcrypto.so.10 is from, but I think an older libressl version?
Well as I have already written _numerous_ times now, Fedora. You can blame OpenSSL for that. IIRC, that project has consistently failed in the past 20 years or so to offer a properly *versioned* shared library, creating just a libcrypto.so, and then people come up with random SO numbers/SO names. In SUSE, it's libcrypto.so.1.0.0, in Fedora, they chose libcrypto.so.10 (FC22). [A better choice would have been to use libcrypto-1.0.0.so.] The first libressl-2.0.0 release used libcrypto.so.29. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@inai.de> wrote:
On Friday 2017-09-01 08:33, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:12:47PM -0400, Roman Bysh wrote:
On 29/08/17 07:02 PM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Tuesday 2017-08-29 23:06, Roman Bysh wrote:
> > Installing Lightworks 14 prompts for libcrypto.so.10 in order > for it to install. [libcrypto.so.10 is a Fedora file] > Ignore/break and see this post: <https://www.lwks.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=21&id=107893&Itemid=81#140022>
I created a symlink using the command "ln -s /lib64/libcrypto.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libcrypto.so.10" before installing Lightworks. I then forced the installation of Lightworks 14 and it started up right away without any errors.
That's a bit of a gamble. You presume that Fedora's libcrypto.so.10 has the same ABI as openSUSE's libcrypto.so.1.0.0, which could backfire at any time, because neither openSUSE nor Fedora give any such guarantee. At worst, you will have silent data corruption without even about knowing it.
The symlink for 42.3 and Lightworks 14 works. However, it does not work on Tumbleweed. I just downloaded a Fedora rpm that provides libcrypto.so.10.
For completeness ...
Not clear where this libcrypto.so.10 is from, but I think an older libressl version?
Well as I have already written _numerous_ times now, Fedora.
You can blame OpenSSL for that. IIRC, that project has consistently failed in the past 20 years or so to offer a properly *versioned* shared library, creating just a libcrypto.so, and then people come up with random SO numbers/SO names. In SUSE, it's libcrypto.so.1.0.0, in Fedora, they chose libcrypto.so.10 (FC22). [A better choice would have been to use libcrypto-1.0.0.so.]
The first libressl-2.0.0 release used libcrypto.so.29.
So, over a year ago, I spoke to one of the Red Hat Security guys about the situation and managed to convince them to make the soname consistent with everyone else for OpenSSL 1.1.x. So starting with Fedora 26, we use libssl.so.1.1 / libcrypto.so.1.1, just like openSUSE, Mageia, Debian, and others. Even though I believed the Fedora scheme was better (it incremented it every time as a whole integer rather than falsely tying it to the version), no one else used it, and it led to problems like this. So that's fixed going forward. The straw that broke the camel's back was that I started seeing bundled copies of old versions of OpenSSL because of the issue. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 2017-09-01 13:56, Neal Gompa wrote:
Not clear where this libcrypto.so.10 is from, but I think an older libressl version?
Well as I have already written _numerous_ times now, Fedora.
So, over a year ago, I spoke to one of the Red Hat Security guys about the situation and managed to convince them to make the soname consistent with everyone else for OpenSSL 1.1.x. So starting with Fedora 26, we use libssl.so.1.1 / libcrypto.so.1.1, just like openSUSE, Mageia, Debian, and others.
Even though I believed the Fedora scheme was better (it incremented it every time as a whole integer rather than falsely tying it to the version), no one else used it
What is important is a unique SONAME, so whether you use integers or version strings does not matter, as long as it does change when it needs to change. Fiddling with the post-".so" number has the problem that upstream can, at any time, come up with their own numbers (as has happened at libressl), which is why pre-.so numbering (think libbfd-2.25.so) seems preferable when distros have to add a number. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
participants (5)
-
Jan Engelhardt -
Malcolm -
Marcus Meissner -
Neal Gompa -
Roman Bysh