Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (331 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] Re: Lightworks requires libcrypto.so.10 file for Leap 42.3
  • From: Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 07:56:17 -0400
  • Message-id: <CAEg-Je9ujJBZshd1vfpYVbhu-QPcWGtJYtE9qcMVv4g=uC=k_Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
List Navigation
Follow Ups