It appears that move to openssl-1.0 means that available skype binaries will break on Fedora 12.
$ ldd /usr/bin/skype | grep so.8 libssl.so.8 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.8 (0x00369000) libcrypto.so.8 => /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.8 (0x001fc000)
I know that skype is binary-only and so on but in practical terms that would be a very serious trouble. Or maybe this is only indirect and openssl-1.0 will work too? No way to check that really in the current state of rawhide where attempts to update to any packages using openssl-1.0 fail on dependencies.
If /usr/lib/libssl.so.8 is really required would be possible to have 'compat-openssl' for that?
Michal
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Michal Jaegermannmichal@harddata.com wrote:
It appears that move to openssl-1.0 means that available skype binaries will break on Fedora 12.
$ ldd /usr/bin/skype | grep so.8 libssl.so.8 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.8 (0x00369000) libcrypto.so.8 => /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.8 (0x001fc000)
I know that skype is binary-only and so on but in practical terms that would be a very serious trouble. Or maybe this is only indirect and openssl-1.0 will work too? No way to check that really in the current state of rawhide where attempts to update to any packages using openssl-1.0 fail on dependencies.
Or maybe this will prod the Skype team to actually update their Linux client? It's long overdue. They supposedly have a version in closed beta that works natively with Pulseaudio.
Regards,
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Michel Alexandre Salimmichael.silvanus@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Michal Jaegermannmichal@harddata.com wrote:
It appears that move to openssl-1.0 means that available skype binaries will break on Fedora 12.
$ ldd /usr/bin/skype | grep so.8 libssl.so.8 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.8 (0x00369000) libcrypto.so.8 => /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.8 (0x001fc000)
I know that skype is binary-only and so on but in practical terms that would be a very serious trouble. Or maybe this is only indirect and openssl-1.0 will work too? No way to check that really in the current state of rawhide where attempts to update to any packages using openssl-1.0 fail on dependencies.
Or maybe this will prod the Skype team to actually update their Linux client? It's long overdue. They supposedly have a version in closed beta that works natively with Pulseaudio.
The beta has been released, not tested it thought (I don't use skype)
On 30/08/2009 4:57 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Or maybe this will prod the Skype team to actually update their Linux client? It's long overdue. They supposedly have a version in closed beta that works natively with Pulseaudio.
Regards,
http://www.skype.com/download/skype/linux/ 2.1 of skype
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 02:57:41AM -0400, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Michal Jaegermannmichal@harddata.com wrote:
It appears that move to openssl-1.0 means that available skype binaries will break on Fedora 12.
$ ldd /usr/bin/skype | grep so.8 libssl.so.8 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.8 (0x00369000) libcrypto.so.8 => /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.8 (0x001fc000)
I know that skype is binary-only and so on but in practical terms that would be a very serious trouble. Or maybe this is only indirect and openssl-1.0 will work too? No way to check that really in the current state of rawhide where attempts to update to any packages using openssl-1.0 fail on dependencies.
Or maybe this will prod the Skype team to actually update their Linux client? It's long overdue. They supposedly have a version in closed beta that works natively with Pulseaudio.
http://www.skype.com/download/skype/linux/choose/
You can find there, unsigned so far, skype-2.1.0.47-fc10.i586.rpm (and another one for f9). On that web page you will see in requirements
* Video card driver with Xv support.
* Software requirements * Qt 4.2.1+ * D-Bus 1.0.0 * libasound2 1.0.12 * PulseAudio 0.9.10+ (optional) * PulseAudio 0.9.15+ (optional recommended)
Only ldd on binaries give for ssl the same as above; which is not a big surprise if you have "fc10" in a package name. Well, the one currently released says "fc5", even if "fc5" works with Fedora 11, so this is quite a progress. :-)
Yes, there is a static version too; but a security update in an underlying library will blow a big hole in such option.
Michal
On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 14:08 -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
It appears that move to openssl-1.0 means that available skype binaries will break on Fedora 12.
$ ldd /usr/bin/skype | grep so.8 libssl.so.8 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.8 (0x00369000) libcrypto.so.8 => /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.8 (0x001fc000)
I know that skype is binary-only and so on but in practical terms that would be a very serious trouble. Or maybe this is only indirect and openssl-1.0 will work too? No way to check that really in the current state of rawhide where attempts to update to any packages using openssl-1.0 fail on dependencies.
If /usr/lib/libssl.so.8 is really required would be possible to have 'compat-openssl' for that?
I certainly will not have any problem if someone submits compat-openssl-098k for review. I do not plan to do add that package myself though.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 01:16:22PM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 14:08 -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
It appears that move to openssl-1.0 means that available skype binaries will break on Fedora 12.
$ ldd /usr/bin/skype | grep so.8 libssl.so.8 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.8 (0x00369000) libcrypto.so.8 => /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.8 (0x001fc000)
I certainly will not have any problem if someone submits compat-openssl-098k for review. I do not plan to do add that package myself though.
At least for skype this does not seem to be necessary. My test system is at last in a good enough shape to try to install skype-2.1.0.47-fc10.i586 from the current Skype beta. Although requirements are not given in this package, so yum will not pick them up by itself, all needed libraries are available and ldd now wants to see libssl.so.10 and libcrypto.so.10; in other words these dependencies I was wondering about are indirect.
I can start that version of skype on a rawhide installation. No idea if it truly works though and on my test box I have really no way to check. Anyone?
Michal
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Michal Jaegermannmichal@harddata.com wrote:
I certainly will not have any problem if someone submits compat-openssl-098k for review. I do not plan to do add that package myself though.
At least for skype this does not seem to be necessary. My test system is at last in a good enough shape to try to install skype-2.1.0.47-fc10.i586 from the current Skype beta. Although requirements are not given in this package, so yum will not pick them up by itself, all needed libraries are available and ldd now wants to see libssl.so.10 and libcrypto.so.10; in other words these dependencies I was wondering about are indirect.
I can start that version of skype on a rawhide installation. No idea if it truly works though and on my test box I have really no way to check. Anyone?
Another option is to ask Skype for a version compiled against OpenSSL 1.0. It's still a beta version of Skype anyway, and surely there are enough Rawhide users out here who are willing to help test.
Regards,
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 01:21:15PM -0400, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
I can start that version of skype on a rawhide installation.
Another option is to ask Skype for a version compiled against OpenSSL 1.0.
As I said - if I can start skype application, using openssl-1.0, then there is _no need for that_. That dependency turned out to be _indirect_, i.e. some library in use needs pieces of openssl-1.0.
I asked if somebody with a more complete hardware setup can check if _using_ skype, as opposed to just starting it, on rawhide with openssl-1.0 is ok too. A beta version goes through pulseaudio.
Michal