On 09/05/2018 02:01 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 09/05/2018 01:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 12:17 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
Recent updates on f27 are blocked because openssl-devel (1.1) conflicts
with compat-openssl10-devel (1.0). [...]
I don't know if it's a real conflict or a packaging artifact that could
be reverted.
AIUI it's usually a real conflict. -devel packages for different
versions of the same library are allowed and usually expected to
conflict (for one thing, they both likely want to own the unversioned
.so for the libraries themselves - e.g. /usr/lib64/libcrypto.so . It's
only really a bug if the non-development library packages conflict.
Is there a particular reason you need both -devel packages installed at
the same time? Are you saying you only have one installed, but
upgrading is trying to add the other for some reason?
I had both -devel packages installed previously and they apparently
started to conflict very recently.
Correction: I had openssl-devel installed, which satisfied the
requirement for openssl devel because the requires specify both
openssl-devel and compat-openssl10-devel:
dnf repoquery --deplist libssh2-devel-1.8.0-5.fc27.x86_64
dependency: pkgconfig(libssl)
provider: compat-openssl10-devel-1:1.0.2o-1.fc27.i686
provider: compat-openssl10-devel-1:1.0.2o-1.fc27.x86_64
provider: openssl-devel-1:1.1.0h-3.fc27.i686
provider: openssl-devel-1:1.1.0h-3.fc27.x86_64
I think recently some packages started requiring specifically
compat-openssl10-devel, e.g.
dnf repoquery --deplist nodejs-devel
dependency: compat-openssl10-devel(x86-64)
provider: compat-openssl10-devel-1:1.0.2o-1.fc27.x86_64
causing the conflict.
Normally I have -devel packages either because they were pulled in as
dependencies, or because I was compiling something else that required
their .h files or something like that.
I don't remember which one was the case here, but please note that
1040 packages require openssl-devel and 265 packages require
compat-openssl10-devel as reported by "dnf repoquery --whatrequires
xxxxxx". I believe that most of those dependencies are specified as
'one or another' which is why this situation can be resolved by
allowing erase of openssl-devel.
This is actually suspicious---I think it DOES matter which openssl
version we're compiling/linking against, and applications have to be
ported, if ever so slightly, from 1.0 to 1.1... but I don't really
know the situation here.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
