Further investigation shows this issue affects both qt and kdelibs now, so would
request this be addressed in EL-5 as well.
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #429846 +++
Due to licensing issues, kdelibs dlopens openssl instead of linking. In order
to make this work, kdelibs needs to know the soname of both libcrypto and
libssl. Upstream kdelibs *tries* to use libssl.so.SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER (and
libcrypto.so.SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER) as defined by openssl/opensslv.h header.
Unfortunately, this doesn't work, since
and the soname in rawhide is named
In order to workaround this, we're currently having to patch kdelibs to hardcode
looking for libssl.so.0.9.8g/libssl.so.7
Is the value of SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER incorrect?
Is this usage/expection of SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER to name sonames invalid?
Any suggestions on how to make this work better?
-- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2008-01-23 09:07 EST --
The file name in rawhide has to be ....0.9.8g otherwise it would conflict with
potential compat libraries with different SONAME.
We should probably patch the SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER to reflect that but it could
theoretically break other things as I don't know how 3rd party apps use this macro.
But don't ask me what I think about dlopening openssl libraries to overcome the
So this will not be a priority for me to solve. kdelibs should instead use GPL
or GPL compatible licensed code for SSL. Such as nss_compat_ossl library.
-- Additional comment from email@example.com on 2008-01-23 09:11 EST --
Interested in exposing SHLIB_SONAMEVER (in opensslv.h or somewhere) as
referenced in openssl-0.9.8g-soversion.patch ?
That could serve nicely.
-- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2008-01-23 10:13 EST --
I could add that but will it really help you? It will not be in openssl upstream
so KDE cannot depend on it.
-- Additional comment from email@example.com on 2008-01-23 10:24 EST --
fair nuf, I'll try pinging both openssl, kde upstreams and see how best to
-- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2008-01-23 11:21 EST --
-- Additional comment from email@example.com on 2008-01-23 17:51 EST --
The soname is actually libssl.so.7 - we patch it to be so otherwise it would be
- we do this because the abi is not stable so we almost always have to bump
sonames on version upgrades
The file name is libssl.so.0.9.8g - again we patch it this way otherwise it
would be libssl.so.0.9.8
- again we do this so multiple openssl versions (with potentially different ABI)
could be installed together.
This makes us (not upstream) to be not in sync with SHLIB_SONAMEVER. So this
question doesn't make much sense to be reported upstream. As I wrote we
could/should probably patch the SHLIB_SONAMEVER to be 0.9.8g but there is a
small possibility it might break things.
-- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2008-01-23 22:04 EST --
Thanks for the clarification.
I don't care so much about SHLIB_SONAMEVER, it's the value of
SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER that I'm more interested in, since that is what (upstream)
kdelibs uses to determine the name of the shlib(s) to dlopen.
-- Additional comment from email@example.com on 2008-01-23 22:08 EST --
My take/wish: fix SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER to match reality. 3rd-parties that use
this are broken in the status-quo (e.g. kdelibs).
-- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2008-01-24 03:02 EST --
(In reply to comment #7)
> I don't care so much about SHLIB_SONAMEVER, it's the value of
> SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER that I'm more interested in, since that is what (upstream)
> kdelibs uses to determine the name of the shlib(s) to dlopen.
Oops, I meant SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER instead of SHLIB_SONAMEVER in the comment 6.
-- Additional comment from email@example.com on 2008-01-26 15:40 EST --
Fixed, let's see what breaks - if anything.
I am not too fond of changing this for RHEL-5. There is still theoretical chance
that the change could break third party apps which use SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER in a
different way than kdelibs/qt.
arg, I thought we had concluded what the *correct* use/value of
SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER is (should be!). Anything that depends on it being wrong,
is just plain broken, imo.
Yes, but the changes in released Red Hat Enterprise Linux distributions should be as conservative as possible.
This will be fixed in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.