Hi Jeff! Thanks! On Sun Jun15'25 08:26:29PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 20:26:29 -0400 > To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > CC: Ranjan Maitra <mlmaitra@xxxxxxx> > Reply-To: noloader@xxxxxxxxx, Community support for Fedora users > <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: is there a way to disable dnf from ignoring conflicting > requests > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 7:15 PM Ranjan Maitra via users > <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sun Jun15'25 09:30:27PM, Marco Moock wrote: > > > From: Marco Moock <mm@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:30:27 +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 14:25:06 Uhr schrieb Ranjan Maitra via users: > > > > > > > BUt I wonder where this different version comes in? Can I specify the > > > > updated ssl version through the spec file or something else? > > > > > > Do more binaries exist that might be the issue? > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks! I do not get this at all. > > > > The spec file when it gets made is saying: > > > > Requires: libPropList.so.0()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXi.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.33)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.34)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)(64bit) libcompface.so.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libgdk-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libglib-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) > > > > Where does this lissl.so.1.1 get pulled in from? > > I don't know where OpenSSL 1.1 is getting pulled in. Btw, here is the source code: http://www.fiction.net/blong/programs/gbuffy/ > > However, Fedora 41 and Fedora 42 provide OpenSSL 3.2 And Fedora > Rawhide provides OpenSSL 3.5. See > <https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/openssl/openssl-devel/>. > > And just to be clear, have you installed the openssl-devel package? Yes, I explicitly have now put in openssl openssl-devel openssl-libs openssl-perl in my Requires as well as BuildRequires. These are the only openssl libraries installed on my machine. I do not understand why the executable works when locally compiled (and libraries linked to are the ones that exist on F42) but the RPM does not install because of the complaints to libraries that should not be linked to. Many thanks and best wishes, Ranjan > > Jeff > -- > _______________________________________________ > 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
