topic Re: failed dependencies..? in Operating System - Linux

failed dependencies..?

Kyle D. Harris — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:20:17 GMT

What is it trying to say i need to do if i'm trying to upgrade openssl by RPM when i have a previous version of ssl by RPM already installed. Here's a small sample:

[root@mcsd5 src]# rpm -U openssl-0.9.7c-2.i386.rpm
warning: openssl-0.9.7c-2.i386.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID e01260f1
error: Failed dependencies:
libcrypto.so.4 is needed by (installed) python-2.2.2-26
libcrypto.so.4 is needed by (installed) cyrus-sasl-2.1.10-4
libcrypto.so.4 is needed by (installed) cyrus-sasl-md5-2.1.10-4
libcrypto.so.4 is needed by (installed) openldap-2.0.27-8
libcrypto.so.4 is needed by (installed) bind-utils-9.2.1-16
libcrypto.so.4 is needed by (installed) lftp-2.6.3-3

Re: failed dependencies..?

Steven E. Protter — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:51:42 GMT

The common factor is libcrypto.so.4

I don't know what rpm thats in but if you figure that out and insstall the missing component you can get to the other failed dependencies.

SEP

Re: failed dependencies..?

Kyle D. Harris — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:25:54 GMT

i think that it is in the old openssl-0.9.7a RPM... Not sure what i'm supposed to do to make it work or what it wants.

Re: failed dependencies..?

Martin P.J. Zinser — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:34:02 GMT

Hello,

I think the issue is rather the other way round. The old openssl you have provides a libcrypto.so.4, which is needed by the applications listed (python, cyrus-sasl, etc.)
If you upgrade OpenSSL these will break ;-)
The way around this most probably is to upgrade these also to the latest versions (or to upgrade OpenSSL to the latest member of the 0.9.6 series (0.9.6l). There have been some serious changes from 0.9.6 to 0.9.7, so that might be the reason the apps do not like to run with the new version.

Greetings, Martin

Re: failed dependencies..?

Martin P.J. Zinser — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:35:41 GMT

try rpm --query openssl to find out what the previsously installed version is

Re: failed dependencies..?

Kyle D. Harris — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:37:57 GMT

openssl-0.9.7a-20

Re: failed dependencies..?

Alexander Chuzhoy — Fri, 09 Jan 2004 02:33:53 GMT

This new RPM probably installes newer version of libcrypto,i.e. libcrypto.so.5
but libcrypto.so.4 is needed by installed python cyrus ,etc.

You can uninstall all the "disturbing" products and after installing the opensll-0.9.7c reinstall them again.

Ignoring this dependency with:
rpm -Uvh --nodeps
will probably cause your installed package partially not to work..

Best Regards...

Re: failed dependencies..?

Kyle D. Harris — Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:36:35 GMT

Well alexander, there's about 50 or so disturbing products. I just listed a small sample. I think most all have libcrypto.so.4 in common. Why is nothing easy in linux!

Re: failed dependencies..?

Claudio Cilloni — Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:49:34 GMT

These dependances-troubles are one of the annoying things of linux :-(I think you can keep a copy of /lib/libcrypto.so.4, force the installation of the new openssl with --nodeps option, and then put again libcrypto.so.4 in /lib. The appications will find the library they want. Sometimes I use this trick, but this breaks the advantages of using the rpm system.Maybe you can search for a .rpm package that provides only the libcrypto.so.4 file...CiaoClaudio

Re: failed dependencies..?

Martin P.J. Zinser — Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:37:01 GMT

Well, this is what you actually pay for when buying a distro ;-) You can get all programs free from the Web, but getting all the dependencies right can be a bit of a pain ;-)

Your best bet here to end up with a consistent system is to upgrade all the packages listed.

Alternatives:
- Do not upgrade OpenSSL (which you might want to because of security upgrades)
- Check if your favorite distro is out with a new version that is up-to-rev concerning OpenSSL and upgrade everything

In case this is a "production" server some serious testing on a separate system should be done using any route discussed in this thread. (Because you either mock around with the dependencies or you end up upgrading many packages)

Greetings, Martin

Re: failed dependencies..?

Mark Grant — Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:39:50 GMT

Actually Kyle, this is another good reason for compiling things yourself :)