Lightworks requires libcrypto.so.10 file for Leap 42.3

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Lightworks requires libcrypto.so.10 file for Leap 42.3

Roman Bysh-5
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: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lightworks requires libcrypto.so.10 file for Leap 42.3

Jan Engelhardt-4
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: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lightworks requires libcrypto.so.10 file for Leap 42.3

Malcolm
In reply to this post by Roman Bysh-5
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: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lightworks requires libcrypto.so.10 file for Leap 42.3

Roman Bysh-5
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: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lightworks requires libcrypto.so.10 file for Leap 42.3

Jan Engelhardt-4

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: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lightworks requires libcrypto.so.10 file for Leap 42.3

Roman Bysh-5
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: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lightworks requires libcrypto.so.10 file for Leap 42.3

Marcus Meissner
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: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lightworks requires libcrypto.so.10 file for Leap 42.3

Jan Engelhardt-4
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: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lightworks requires libcrypto.so.10 file for Leap 42.3

Neal Gompa
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Jan Engelhardt <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lightworks requires libcrypto.so.10 file for Leap 42.3

Jan Engelhardt-4

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: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]