First, particularly if you already have openSSL and any other crypto apps/libraries installed, update your system, in your case that might be all that’s needed to pick up the most current crypto libraries.
But, in general
One way is to recognize that oftentimes although a more recent library version is “required” and older version will work fine. In these cases you can create a symbolic link to the older library (There are numerous threads in these forums describing how to do this if this is what you want to do).
But, I’d generally recommend first that you go ahead and just install either the new library if you can find it… Although it’s probably possible to use a zypper command with the “provides” flag I’ve found it’s simpler to find either by
Search Google using the keywords “openSUSE” your OS version and the library name.
On 2012-03-22 03:46, tsu2 wrote:
> But, in general
> One way is to recognize that oftentimes although a more recent library
> version is “required” and older version will work fine. In these cases
> you can create a symbolic link to the older library (There are numerous
> threads in these forums describing how to do this if this is what you
> want to do).
However, libcrypto.so.10 does not exist. It is a known problem with google
applications that want that wrong number. They think that the next version
to 0.9 is 10, when it is 1.0, that does indeed exist.
This came out long time ago, when google talk was developed:
Thanks for replies! However, making symlinks is only a workaround. And what if people use Suse Studio, where you cannot ignore dependencies? Maybe the dummy package providing libcrypto.so.1.0.0 named as libcrypto.so.10 could be incorporated?
On 2012-03-22 13:56, rugbygangster wrote:
> Thanks for replies! However, making symlinks is only a workaround. And
> what if people use Suse Studio, where you cannot ignore dependencies?
> Maybe the dummy package providing libcrypto.so.1.0.0 named as
> libcrypto.so.10 could be incorporated?
You can ask the packagers, but I’m afraid that the answer will be, as it
was before, no. There would be a problem when the real …so.10 comes. And
it is not their fault.
Or you can make an rpm package that creates the symlinks. A compatibility
package. It would not be the first one.
Or you can complain to google, the real culprits.
Or you can repackage it correctly, if the license permits. Something of the
sort was done for google talk, you should review the posts made here at the
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.4 x86_64 “Celadon” at Telcontar)
Unstable is unstable. Someone is carrying forward an error that existed in “stable” as recently as 3 months ago.
Recommend you contact the Google builders to determine exactly what they did to fix the problem recently (or with any luck find it in their bugtraq). That’ll probably provide the recipe for what you should do.