Thanks, Jeff! On Sun Jun15'25 09:01:16PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:01:16 -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 8:44 PM Ranjan Maitra via users > <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Well, I don't see where gbuffy is setting OpenSSL 1.1 explicitly. > gbuffy appears to be using OpenSSL provided by the machine (Fedora > 41?). > > $ wget http://www.fiction.net/blong/programs/gbuffy/gbuffy-0.2.6/gbuffy-0.2.6.tar.gz > Saving 'gbuffy-0.2.6.tar.gz' > HTTP response 200 OK > [http://www.fiction.net/blong/programs/gbuffy/gbuffy-0.2.6/gbuffy-0.2.6.tar.gz > 100% [=============================>] 85.43K --.-KB/s > [Files: 1 Bytes: 85.43K [355.9] > > > $ tar -xzf gbuffy-0.2.6.tar.gz > $ ls > gbuffy-0.2.6 gbuffy-0.2.6.tar.gz > > > $ cd gbuffy-0.2.6/ > $ grep -iIR openssl > configure.in:AC_MSG_CHECKING([for OpenSSL]) > configure.in: for ssldir in "" /usr /usr/local > /usr/local/openssl /usr/lib/openssl /usr/local/ssl /usr/local/www > /usr/lib/ssl /usr/local /usr/pkg /opt /opt/openssl "$ssld"; do > configure.in: AC_TRY_LINK([#include > <openssl/ssl.h>], [OpenSSL_add_all_algorithms()], cf_result=yes, > cf_result=no) > configure.in: AC_TRY_LINK([#include > <openssl/ssl.h>], [SSLeay_add_ssl_algorithms()], cf_result=yes, > cf_result=no) > configure.in: AC_MSG_ERROR("OpenSSL not found") > msocket.c:#include <openssl/ssl.h> > msocket.h:#include <openssl/ssl.h> > configure:echo $ac_n "checking for OpenSSL""... $ac_c" 1>&6 > configure:echo "configure:2096: checking for OpenSSL" >&5 > configure: for ssldir in "" /usr /usr/local /usr/local/openssl > /usr/lib/openssl /usr/local/ssl /usr/local/www /usr/lib/ssl /usr/local > /usr/pkg /opt /opt/openssl "$ssld"; do > configure:#include <openssl/ssl.h> > configure:OpenSSL_add_all_algorithms() > configure:#include <openssl/ssl.h> > configure: { echo "configure: error: "OpenSSL > not found"" 1>&2; exit 1; } > > $ grep -iIR crypto > configure.in: LIBS="-L$ssldir/lib -lssl > -lcrypto $LIBS_X" > configure.in: LIBS="-lssl -lcrypto $LIBS_X" > configure: LIBS="-L$ssldir/lib -lssl > -lcrypto $LIBS_X" > configure: LIBS="-lssl -lcrypto $LIBS_X" > > It has to be something you are doing in your build environment. > Right, but I can not see where this problem (a different version of libssl.so) is coming in from. However, trying to eliminate all possibilities led me to the answer. And that is, it likely was the case that the tarball that was created and I was using had this outdated libssl.so.1.1 included inside it. So, I created a new tarball (with the code that was compiling outside the RPM creation and the problem went away). If anyone is interested, I put the updated version of gbuffy here: https://github.com/maitra/gbuffy and because libPropList is also needed: https://github.com/maitra/libPropList Sorry for using all your time: I should have thought about this right away. Thanks again for all your help! Best wishes, Ranjan > _______________________________________________ > 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
