On Sun Jun15'25 09:15:10PM, Marco Moock wrote: > From: Marco Moock <mm@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:15:10 +0200 > To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Reply-To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: is there a way to disable dnf from ignoring conflicting > requests > > Am 15.06.2025 um 13:51:35 Uhr schrieb Ranjan Maitra via users: > > > $ sudo dnf install ../RPMS/x86_64/gbuffy-0.2.8-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm > > Updating and loading repositories: > > Repositories loaded. > > Failed to resolve the transaction: > > Problem: conflicting requests > > - nothing provides libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) needed by > > gbuffy-0.2.8-3.fc42.x86_64 from @commandline > > - nothing provides libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) needed by > > gbuffy-0.2.8-3.fc42.x86_64 from @commandline > > - nothing provides libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) needed by > > gbuffy-0.2.8-3.fc42.x86_64 from @commandline You can try to add to > > command line: --skip-broken to skip uninstallable packages > > > > I do not understand what the issue is. The spec file explicitly > > disables openssl and does not even require it. > > Do the binaries link against those files? > If so, you need to check the compilation of them. Thanks very much! Yes, interestingly it does: $ ldd gbuffy linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007f3f7a937000) libgtk-1.2.so.0 => /lib64/libgtk-1.2.so.0 (0x00007f3f7a7a2000) libgdk-1.2.so.0 => /lib64/libgdk-1.2.so.0 (0x00007f3f7a75c000) libgmodule-1.2.so.0 => /lib64/libgmodule-1.2.so.0 (0x00007f3f7a756000) libglib-1.2.so.0 => /lib64/libglib-1.2.so.0 (0x00007f3f7a725000) libXi.so.6 => /lib64/libXi.so.6 (0x00007f3f7a711000) libXext.so.6 => /lib64/libXext.so.6 (0x00007f3f7a6fd000) libX11.so.6 => /lib64/libX11.so.6 (0x00007f3f7a5b5000) libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x00007f3f7a4c7000) libPropList.so.0 => /lib64/libPropList.so.0 (0x00007f3f7a4b7000) libssl.so.3 => /lib64/libssl.so.3 (0x00007f3f7a3e1000) libcrypto.so.3 => /lib64/libcrypto.so.3 (0x00007f3f79e00000) libcompface.so.1 => /lib64/libcompface.so.1 (0x00007f3f7a3ce000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f3f79c0e000) libxcb.so.1 => /lib64/libxcb.so.1 (0x00007f3f7a3a2000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f3f7a939000) libz.so.1 => /lib64/libz.so.1 (0x00007f3f7a37f000) libXau.so.6 => /lib64/libXau.so.6 (0x00007f3f7a379000) BUt I wonder where this different version comes in? Can I specify the updated ssl version through the spec file or something else? Many thanks, Ranjan > > -- > Gruß > Marco > > Send unsolicited bulk mail to 1749988295muell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > -- > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
