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

[Thomas L. <ta...@gm...>]

On 9 January 2014 22:54, Tim Cuthbertson <ti...@gf...> wrote:
> 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?

Yes. It's not a complete solution, but it does

a) make it possible to run on Fedora (with the symlink hack)
b) get rid of the warning on Arch

Since nothing depends on the OCaml feed currently, I think we can
still release this as 2.6. Distributions can include it and build
their own binaries. Then we can try to figure out some dynamic linker
tricks to make the binaries generic for 2.7 (or static link openssl,
though I'd prefer to avoid that).

> 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.


-- 
Dr Thomas Leonard        http://0install.net/
GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6  8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1
GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA  BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA