Due to apparent historical reasons, Fedora uses a different soname for the openssl libraries (libssl and libcrypto) than the one defined upstream [1]. From what I understood this might have been needed for pre-1.0.0 versions due to functionalities that had to be stripped due to patent issues. I'm not competent enough to say if this custom soname is still relevant API-wise, but since most other GNU/Linux distros do not change this soname, it introduces compatibility issues for binaries dynamically linked against openssl on a non-Fedora system when trying to run them on Fedora (see e.g. [2] or one of the various forum topics telling Fedora users to make symlinks), since distros like Debian, Ubuntu or Mageia link against libssl.so.1.0.0 and libcrypto.so.1.0.0, while Fedora provides .so.10. So I just wanted to question the current relevance of this custom soname, to see if Fedora could go in a more upstream-compatible direction (or have the soname changed upstream if need be). Thanks in advance. [1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/openssl.git/tree/openssl.spec [2] https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/1391
There is no ABI compatibility among OpenSSL in various distributions unless they really care about it and keep the patches and enabled/disabled feature sets of OpenSSL exactly the same. I did not look at the other distros in depth but I do not expect them to carry the same stuff as we do in for example the FIPS support patches, etc. So the non-upstream soname is still very much relevant for Fedora. I might look at the issue again once we will be rebasing to the current upstream master branch (i.e. openssl-1.1.0) as that version will break ABI again.