Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 806031
emacs requires libotf.so.0 which can be spoofed by openmpi; Emacs should require libotf explicitly
Last modified: 2014-08-31 19:31:01 EDT
Description of problem: Emacs has a dependency on libotf.so.0. openmpi claims to provide libotf.so.0, so kickstart and yum will happily install both and *not* require libotf. When emacs starts up, it fails complaining that it cannot load libotf.so. Which makes sense, since openmpi installs it's library for private use in /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libotf.so.0. I don't even know of openmpi's libotf is equivalent of libotf or if it's a library naming collision. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): emacs-23.1-21.el6_2.3.i686 openmpi-1.5.3-3.el6.i686 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Do not install libotf 2. Install openmpi 3. install emacs 4. start emacs from the command line; It fails due to a a missing libotf.so.0 library. Actual results: emacs fails at the command line. Installation of emacs should explicitly require "libotf" rather than just libotf.so.0. Expected results: emacs should just run. Kickstart should pull in the correct dependencies. Right now it's pulling openmpi instead of libotf. Additional info: The emacs.spec should have an explicit Requires: libotf .. statement to pull in the libotf rpm. The *real* problem is thatthe openmpi package is bundling private libraries but advertising them as publicly available. This is a side-effect of rpmbuild's automatic "Provides" scan listing anything that's a .so file as "provided", regardless of whether or not it's installed in the dynamic linker's default path. So part of the blame could go to rpmbuild as well. But the simplest work-around is to have emacs explicitly require libotf package itself.
The Fedora 16 openmpi.spec file looks like it takes care of this. Example: RHEL 6.2: % rpm -q --provides openmpi |grep lib libmca_common_sm.so.2 libmpi.so.1 libmpi_cxx.so.1 libmpi_f77.so.1 libmpi_f90.so.1 libompi_dbg_msgq.so libompitrace.so.0 libopen-pal.so.2 libopen-rte.so.2 libotf.so.0 libvt-hyb.so.0 libvt-mpi.so.0 libvt-mt.so.0 libvt.so.0 mca_maffinity_libnuma.so Fedora 16: % rpm -q --provides openmpi |grep lib libmpi.so.1()(64bit) libmpi_cxx.so.1()(64bit) libmpi_f77.so.1()(64bit) libmpi_f90.so.1()(64bit) This was addressed for Fedora 15 & 16 by Bug 741104
I think the situation is actually worse than this. OpenMPI's libotf lives in /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib, so by default it is not visible to other applications. If you want to use OpenMPI, you are supposed to use: module load openmpi-x86_64 to make it available. Part of what this does is to add /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib to the front of LD_LIBRARY_PATH. If you then run emacs -Q and type C-h h to view the HELLO file (or try to open any other file that contains complex characters), Emacs crashes with: /usr/bin/emacs: symbol lookup error: /usr/bin/emacs: undefined symbol: OTF_open because it finds the wrong libotf.so thanks to LD_LIBRARY_PATH. So basically it is impossible to actually _use_ both Emacs and OpenMPI on RHEL6.
I suppose a workaround might be to build the emacs rpm using LDFLAGS=-Wl,-rpath=/usr/lib64, so that it prefers the libraries from /usr/lib64 to any in LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
Not really. The real problem is that the libotf package isn't pulled in during install, since yum/rpm believes the libotf.so requirement is satisfied by openmpi. If libotf is installed, no problem.
Sorry, comment 4 was intended as a possible solution to the crash issue in comment 3; not the installation issue in comment 1, which is solved in comment 2.
Open MPI package should not claim to provide libotf.so.0, as it is a private library. The corresponding Provides filter has been already tested in Fedora. The workaround of depending on libotf directly does not solve the issue for other (possibly 3rd party) packages.
I agree Karel, this is more appropriately an openmpi issue. Thank you for re-assigning the bug.
I noticed Red Hat just asserted the NEEDINFO flag on this bug, but I don't seen associated questions or unanswered questions. What INFO do you NEED?
This is fixed in 6.3
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 768457 ***