If you depend on pkgconfig one, then depending on environment you can get different results ... Is there this what you are looking for?
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018, 22:05 Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:31 PM Przemek Klosowski < > przemek.klosow...@nist.gov> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > > So, that's been a bone of contention for a while. nodejs-devel doesn't > *strictly* require compat-openssl10-devel for all usages, but if someone is > using the SSL/TLS features in it and openssl-devel is installed instead, > unfortunate things happen. > > I've been thinking it might be better to make it a Recommends: though, > especially if it's causing issues like this. I just really don't like the > idea that a build might work or not work depending on which packages you > happen to have installed. I prefer hard dependencies for that reason. > > I keep going back and forth on what the right course of action is here. > I'm mostly just hoping that Node.js upstream unbreaks its OpenSSL 1.1 > compatibility on the 8.x LTS stream and I can switch back to using that... > I had to building against 1.0 because 1.1 broke a bunch of things. > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > 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@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- -Igor Gnatenko
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
