Re: [Zero-install-devel] 0install 2.6-rc2

[Anders F B. <af...@us...>]

Thomas Leonard wrote:

>> The symlink workaround doesn't work, since the library is indeed OpenSSL 1.0.1 only.
>> So it is missing the OPENSSL_1.0.0 symbols anyway, even if the name is symlinked.
> 
> I've built new binaries (2.6-rc3) against upstream openssl and
> libcurl, so hopefully untainted by Debian or Fedora craziness. Anyway,
> the symbol versions seem to be gone :-)

Yes, this one works OK against the system libraries in Fedora!

At least it didn't get any symbol issues when starting up. :-)

>> Guess the only workaround is to actually install libssl.so.1.0.0/libcrypto.so.1.0.0 ?
>> Perhaps this could be added to the feed, with a binary and package-dep on libssl1.0.0

This is still needed, since I needed symlinks from the system
library (called "libssl.so.1.0.1e") to this "libssl.so.1.0.0"...

Could you add them as a http://repo.roscidus.com/crypto/openssl ?
I suppose it could use the system packages for Debian, but not RPM.

>> BTW; It doesn't work on RHEL 6 either, this time because it requires glibc > 2.12...
>> I suppose we need some updated RPMS, if this is supposed to build and install easier.


Seems there's a couple of the dependencies that needs packaging
for Fedora, but those should be straight-forward enough to do ?

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml?rd=Packaging/OCaml
Available ones are: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/?q=ocaml

--anders