[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Adding libsqlcipher0 to stretch-backports



Dear Gianfranco, dear all,

I used a fresh netinstall image of Debian 9.2.1 amd64, selected KDE and
installed skrooge.
Open the software, click "Save As", enter any filename, click save -
Segmentation Fault.

Looking at GDB, Skrooge in Debian 9 suffers from the same error that I
am suffering from - it loads OpenSSL 1.1.x for one dependency, then
loads libsqlcipher0, which segfaults at EVP_EncryptUpdate() in
libcrypto.so.1.1 (because it is compiled for OpenSSL 1.0.x).

So I would say we should maybe not add libsqlcipher0 in version 3.4.1 to
backports, but instead to stable.
As far as I can see and tell, only Skrooge depends on libsqlcipher0 -
and it is currently broken.
Sadly, I have no experience on how to get this stone rolling. Should I
file a bug against Skrooge in Stable? Or would I make more sende for
someone else to do this?

Cheers,
Philipp

Am 01-Dec-17 um 08:53 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna:
> Hello,
>
> (adding Micah to the loop, he is the last uploader for the package)
>
>
>> I propose adding libsqlcipher0 in version 3.4.1 (from buster) to
>> stretch-backports.
>>
>> Reason: libsqlcipher0 in version 3.2.0 (currently shipped with stretch)
>>
>> links against OpenSSL 1.0.x, whereas the new version links against
>> OpenSSL 1.1.x. In our use case where both libsqlcipher0 and libraries
> >from Qt5 are used alongside each other, this results in Segfaults when
>> calling into libsqlcipher0.
>> Sadly, I have no prior experience with Debian package maintenance and,
>> following the hints in the documentation, therefore suggest this to this
>> mailing list.
>
> you probably should make sure that skrooge this work with the backported package...
>
> Did ABI change from 3.2.0 to 3.4.1? (specially with the underlying toolchain changes)?
> If so, without a SONAME bump, this is an RC bug and a no-go for a backport.
>
> G.



Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


Reply to: