Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because
the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
DescriptionJaroslav Spanko
2017-03-27 14:26:55 UTC
Description of problem:
After update ghostscript gs fails with
gs: symbol lookup error: /lib64/libgs.so.9: undefined symbol: cmsCreateContext
ghostscript.x86_64 0:9.07-18.el7 will be updated
ghostscript.x86_64 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 will be an update
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
ghostscript.x86_64 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1
How reproducible:
100%
Steps to Reproduce:
Update ghostscript.x86_64 0:9.07-18.el7 to ghostscript.x86_64 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1
Actual results:
gs: symbol lookup error: /lib64/libgs.so.9: undefined symbol: cmsCreateContext
Expected results:
gs without symbol lookup error
Additional info:
This is because of lcms2
ghostscript.x86_64 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 with lcms2-2.5-4.el7.x86_64 fails
ghostscript.x86_64 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 with lcms2-2.6-2.el7.x86_64 works
Could you please add lcms2-2.6-2.el7.x86_64 as dependency for ghostscript.x86_64 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 ?
Thank you
Comment 2David Kaferad // Dee'Kej
2017-03-27 15:31:53 UTC
Hello, as you can see here:
$ rpm -qpR ghostscript-9.07-20.el7_3.3.x86_64.rpm | grep lcms2
> liblcms2.so.2()(64bit)
The ghostscript-9.07-20.el7_3.3.x86_64.rpm has the dependency requirement for *lcms2*.
If you try to install the ghostscript package with 'yum install', it will automatically install current lcms2 package for RHEL-7.3 (lcms2-2.6-3.el7.x86_64). Removing the lcms2 package will actually remove the ghostscript package as well.
In other words, the ghostscript package has the requirements for lcms2 package, and in current RHEL-7.3 repositories there should the lcms2 version 2.6 available.
Looking into the specfile:
> BuildRequires: lcms2-devel >= 2.4-5
The only thing I can do is to increase the version requirement for this, but from your problem description, I'm not sure it would actually solve your problem.
Best regards,
David
(In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #2)
> Looking into the specfile:
> > BuildRequires: lcms2-devel >= 2.4-5
This is a build-time dependency, not run-time dependency. Library dependencies are scanned by rpm-build automatically and everything should just work if the shared libraries are properly versioned (by their SONAMEs). If they are not, you need to introduce an explicit run-time dependency.
Comment 6David Kaferad // Dee'Kej
2017-03-28 10:24:50 UTC
(In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #5)
> Library
> dependencies are scanned by rpm-build automatically and everything should
> just work if the shared libraries are properly versioned (by their SONAMEs).
Yeah, this was my thinking initially. I didn't expect that 'yum upgrade' wouldn't update the lcms2 package as well, but I guess our customer used the 'yum upgrade ghostscript' command, which would explain the problem.
> If they are not, you need to introduce an explicit run-time dependency.
Yes, I will add the explicit 'Requires: lcms2 >= 2.6-1' (2.6-3 if necessary). Thanks.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.
For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.
If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:2180