Bug 1489539

Sigh, I guess that's not the first time this hack has broken:

commit 4e79a19fe0b6dc3c2bd9cae9dfdbc5e96a3f98f8
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen>
Date:   Mon Jan 25 22:19:38 2010 -0600

    libss: add newer libreadline to dlopen path
    
    Rawhide now has libreadline.so.6 ... add it to the ever-expanding
    list of libs to look for.
    
    Unfortunately without commit 06ef971be505678ee462ae1844204ed24f14aedc
    this fails in a rather cryptic way.
    
    Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen>
    Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso>

Created attachment 1323767 [details]
Proposed patch

So I guess something like the attached patch would do the trick.  Should find either libreadline or libedit in everything from F25 to today's rawhide.

This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 26. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora  'version'
of '26'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version'
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not
able to fix it before Fedora 26 is end of life. If you would still like
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Sorry, I double checked and this is actually fixed on rawhide (but will need to be fixed again if libreadline.so.8 ever exists).  It does seem to still be broken on F28, though.

Yup, this fix went into v1.44, but f28 appears to have 1.43.8.  Rebasing f28 would not be a terrible idea.

This is such a crazy fragile arrangement.  :(

commit cb6d45fb1cd00199d0c7ca6ffe3eee8f7f74fa20
Author: Lukas Czerner <lczerner>
Date:   Thu Feb 22 14:25:03 2018 +0100

    libss: add newer libreadline.so.7 to dlopen path
    
    Rawhide now has libreadline.so.7. Add it to the list of libs to look
    for.
    
    Based on commit 4e79a19fe0b6dc3c2bd9cae9dfdbc5e96a3f98f8 for previous
    libreadline version.
    
    Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner>
    Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso>

diff --git a/lib/ss/get_readline.c b/lib/ss/get_readline.c
index 9365be0..11c72b3 100644
--- a/lib/ss/get_readline.c
+++ b/lib/ss/get_readline.c
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ static void ss_release_readline(ss_data *info)
 #endif
 
 /* Libraries we will try to use for readline/editline functionality */
-#define DEFAULT_LIBPATH "libreadline.so.6:libreadline.so.5:libreadline.so.4:libreadline.so:libedit.so.2:libedit.so:libeditline.so.0:libeditline.so"
+#define DEFAULT_LIBPATH "libreadline.so.7:libreadline.so.6:libreadline.so.5:libreadline.so.4:libreadline.so:libedit.so.2:libedit.so:libeditline.so.0:libeditline.so"
 
 #ifdef HAVE_DLOPEN
 void ss_get_readline(int sci_idx)

Fair enough, f28 is fairly fresh still. So let's rebase to the latest and greatest 1.44.2

-Lukas

e2fsprogs-1.44.2-0.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ceebac37b8

e2fsprogs-1.44.2-0.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ceebac37b8

e2fsprogs-1.44.2-0.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

I didn't get a chance to test this before it was pushed, but I can verify that it does help.  Though the package release number should be '1', not '0' as releases less than 1 indicate a prerelease, and release is never allowed to be 0 in any case.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Simple_versioning
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Prerelease_versions