Hey everyone,
I just recompiled Balsa today since aspell 0.5 was finally
uploaded into unstable. However, I noted the following:
netsnipe@espresso:~/public_html/debian% linda balsa_2.0.5-2_i386.deb
W: balsa; Shared object /usr/bin/balsa is linked with version 0.9.7
and 0.9.6 of libcrypto.
W: balsa; Shared object /usr/bin/balsa is linked with version 0.9.7
and 0.9.6 of libssl.
The binary object shown above links against 2 versions of the same
shared library. This means your package may require conflicting
packages to be installed at the same time, and is therefore
uninstallable, or the binary may not work. This may also be ignored
if versioned symbols are being used in both libraries.
Balsa depend only contains libcyrpto0.9.7 and libssl0.9.7 despite the
following ldd output:
netsnipe@espresso:~/public_html/debian% ldd =balsa
libcrypto.so.0.9.7 => /usr/lib/i686/libcrypto.so.0.9.7 (0x40ece000)
libcrypto.so.0.9.6 => /usr/lib/i686/libcrypto.so.0.9.6 (0x412fe000)
libssl.so.0.9.7 => /usr/lib/i686/libssl.so.0.9.7 (0x40e9f000)
libssl.so.0.9.6 => /usr/lib/i686/libssl.so.0.9.6 (0x412d0000)
...
So my question is, should I postpone uploading my updated Balsa
packages until all the GNOME 2 libraries have been rebuilt against
libcrypto/libssl 0.9.7 packages to remove the indirect 0.9.6 link?
Yours sincerely,
Andrew "Netsnipe" Lau
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Andrew "Netsnipe" Lau Computer Science & Student Rep, UNSW *
* # apt-get into it Debian GNU/Linux Package Maintainer *
* <netsnipe(+)debianplanet.org\0> <alau(+)cse.unsw.edu.au\0> *
* GnuPG 1024D/2E8B68BD 0B77 73D0 4F3B F286 63F1 9F4A 9B24 C07D 2E8B 68BD *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpC5_5K05Kcc.pgp
Description: PGP signature