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

[Tim C. <ti...@gf...>]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...> wrote:
> On 7 January 2014 23:16, Anders F Björklund <af...@us...> wrote:
>>>> Looks like the prebuilt binary is missing a dependency (or maybe it's a distro issue, I can't quite tell):
>>> ...
>>>> error while loading shared libraries: libcrypto.so.1.0.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
>>>
>>> This has been broken/incompatible between Redhat and Debian, since about forever or so...
>>> Basically Fedora just makes something up at random:
>
> Wow. That's crazy. Thanks for the explanation!
>
>>> Supposedly one could just provde some compatibility shim that tries to load either soname ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Or force the user to do some creative symlinking...
>>>
>>> Sadly, this seems to be the more popular "answer".
>>
>>
>> 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 :-)

Hmm, this still doesn't work for me:

$ 0install run --not-before=2.6-rc3 http://0install.net/tools/0install.xml
/home/tim/.cache/0install.net/implementations/sha256new_XBH32RLRWOXKRBDE7RA4L357CHREDW4FHU6BMZWB3F465S3RQQOA/files/0install:
error while loading shared libraries: libcrypto.so.1.0.0: cannot open
shared object file: No such file or directory

ldd still reports:

    libcrypto.so.1.0.0 => not found
    libssl.so.1.0.0 => not found

If you've built against the upstream libssl, doesn't that mean you
need to depend on upstream-named .so files as well? I still only have
the fedora .so files, which are named crazily. Or does this still
depend on the symlink workaround that Anders mentioned? That seems
like more effort than an end user should be expected to do.

Cheers,
 - Tim.