Hide Forgot
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 Description of problem: The term package monkey is often used to describe RPM maintainers, but RH package monkeys must truly have the IQ of a monkey... The package openssl-0.9.6b-8 contains the files /lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6b /lib/libssl.so.0.9.6b and the symlinks /lib/libcrypto.so.2 /lib/libssl.so.2 point to these files, respectively. First of all, where does the '2' come from in libssl.so.2 and libcrypto.so.2? These files should be called libssl.so.0 and libcrypto.so.0. Also, the package openssl-devel-0.9.6b-8 contains the files /usr/lib/libssl.so /usr/lib/libcrypto.so There is no need for the -devel package to contain shared libs since the base package does. Why are they in a different directory (/usr/lib instead of /lib)? Does RedHat intentionally pull a MicroSoft and try to make their distro incompatible with everyone else? Seriously, why do you make it impossible for packages built on other distros to work on RedHat Linux?? Please fix RedHat linux so that the symlinks libcrypto.so.0 and libssl.so.0 exist. Also, get rid of libcrypto.so.2 and libssl.so.2, as these have no reason to exist (at least not until the version of openssl is >= 2.0.0. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.Install RedHat 7.2 2.type 'locate libssl' and 'locate libcrypto' 3.Stare in awe at the blatant stupidity that appears before you on your screen. Expected Results: There should be libcrypto.so.0 and libssl.so.0 symlinks, and there should not be shared libs for openssl in both /lib and /usr/lib. Additional info:
The library sonames have changed from 0 through 2 because subsequent release of OpenSSL are not binary compatible with each other. If we didn't do this, then applications would break e.g. when users upgraded from 0.9.6 to 0.9.6b. The -devel package only contains symlinks to the real .so files. If they weren't there, applications can't link against the shared libraries. The compatibility issue is not best addressed here - maybe you can try the LSB effort?