Fedora 35, nothing provides error

Hello,

New to Fedora, was using Ubuntu prior.
I am trying to install a program I used on Ubuntu but cannot get it to install due to “uninstallable packages”.
Getting a long list of these, I went a head and tried installing openssl, which is one of the dependencies and it tells me I already have openssl_1.1. Not sure what to try next:

sudo yum install pcoip-client --nobest
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:08 ago on Mon 25 Apr 2022 07:41:49 PM EDT.
Error: 
 Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc3.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc3.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.2)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc3.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc3.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libhiredis.so.0.12()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc3.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libssl.so.10()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc3.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc3.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libva.so.1()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc3.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc2.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc2.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.2)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc2.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc2.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libhiredis.so.0.12()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc2.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libssl.so.10()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc2.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc2.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libva.so.1()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc2.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc1.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc1.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.2)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc1.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc1.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libhiredis.so.0.12()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc1.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libssl.so.10()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc1.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc1.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libva.so.1()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.07.0-0.rc1.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc8.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc8.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.2)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc8.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc8.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libhiredis.so.0.12()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc8.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libssl.so.10()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc8.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc8.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libva.so.1()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc8.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc4.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc4.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.2)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc4.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc4.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libhiredis.so.0.12()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc4.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libssl.so.10()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc4.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc4.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libva.so.1()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.04.0-0.rc4.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-0.rc6.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-0.rc6.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.2)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-0.rc6.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-0.rc6.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libhiredis.so.0.12()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-0.rc6.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libssl.so.10()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-0.rc6.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-0.rc6.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libva.so.1()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-0.rc6.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-1.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-1.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.2)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-1.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-1.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libhiredis.so.0.12()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-1.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libssl.so.10()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-1.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-1.el7.x86_64
  - nothing provides libva.so.1()(64bit) needed by pcoip-client-22.01.3-1.el7.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

When trying to install openssl, I get this:
sudo dnf install openssl
Last metadata expiration check: 0:01:59 ago on Mon 25 Apr 2022 07:20:35 PM EDT.
Package openssl-1:1.1.1n-1.fc35.x86_64 is already installed.
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!

Don’t try to install package from different distro .It is not compatible with fedora.Check repos you installed ’ ls /etc/yum.repos.d/ ’ and copy to us list of repos

1 Like
/etc/yum.repos.d/_copr_phracek-PyCharm.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-cisco-openh264.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-modular.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-updates.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-updates-modular.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-updates-testing.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-updates-testing-modular.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/google-chrome.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/pcoip.rep
/etc/yum.repos.d/rpmfusion-free.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/rpmfusion-free-updates.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/rpmfusion-free-updates-testing.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/rpmfusion-nonfree.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/rpmfusion-nonfree-nvidia-driver.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/rpmfusion-nonfree-steam.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/rpmfusion-nonfree-updates.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-testing.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/teradici-pcoip-client-beta.repo

To be clear, I am using the RHEL repo not the Ubuntu repo

What are the content of these 2 files.

The site says it is supported on RHEL 7.5 so whether it can be made to work on fedora 35 or not is questionable.

Your list of errors shows lots of version problems and since the package you are trying to install is not coming from a fedora supported repo the dependencies are not right.

You will have to work through the errors one at a time and try to fix those before a clean install can be done.
Just one error of note that will need to be worked through:
Your errors call for libcrypto.so.10, but the latest version on fedora 36 is libcrypto.so.3.0.2 provided by openssl 3.0.2.

Package naming and versioning on RHEL is different than on fedora, and since RHEL 7.5 is quite old you will likely mess up your fedora install if you begin installing packages from the RHEL repos.

BTW, just a clue for your thought.
My system has /usr/lib64/libcrypto.so.10 that is a symlink to /usr/lib64/libcrypto.so.1.0.2o.
You may find some of the needed files are actually there, but cannot be located by the way the package is created.

You also may find that the matching package .devel versions are what is actually missing, such as is the case with libhiredis.so.0.12 and the version with fedora 36 is libhiredis.so.1.0.0 which is much newer.

2 Likes

I’d also report this to whoever is providing that repo and ask them to provide one for Fedora. As noted, repositories for RHEL/CentOS/some other RPM distro cannot be used on Fedora. They’re from the same family of distributions, but they’re not the same :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thanks for the info.
This application is pretty much the most important package for me and I really would love to get it working on Fedora as I have tried it and it seems very stable compared to Ubuntu.

According to the support site for this software they also have a beta for RHEL 8, does that help in any way or will it just the be same?

Working through, one at a time and creating symlinks to the newer packages on my system, is this a good idea/solution to get this working?
I would prefer getting it up an running on Fedora, v.s. going back to Ubuntu.

Thanks again

1 Like

/etc/yum.repos.d/teradici-pcoip-client-beta.repo

# Source: Teradici
# Site: https://help.teradici.com
# Repository: Teradici / pcoip-client-beta
# Description: A certifiably-awesome private package repository curated by Teradici, hosted by Cloudsmith.

[teradici-pcoip-client-beta]
name=teradici-pcoip-client-beta
baseurl=https://dl.teradici.com/vUJtPyh2fJdAXVJZ/pcoip-client-beta/rpm/el/7/$basearch
repo_gpgcheck=1
enabled=1
gpgkey=https://dl.teradici.com/vUJtPyh2fJdAXVJZ/pcoip-client-beta/gpg.4581DD6ACC910D6F.key
gpgcheck=1
sslverify=1
sslcacert=/etc/pki/tls/certs/ca-bundle.crt
metadata_expire=300
pkg_gpgcheck=1
autorefresh=1
type=rpm-md

[teradici-pcoip-client-beta-noarch]
name=teradici-pcoip-client-beta-noarch
baseurl=https://dl.teradici.com/vUJtPyh2fJdAXVJZ/pcoip-client-beta/rpm/el/7/noarch
repo_gpgcheck=1
enabled=1
gpgkey=https://dl.teradici.com/vUJtPyh2fJdAXVJZ/pcoip-client-beta/gpg.4581DD6ACC910D6F.key
gpgcheck=1
sslverify=1
sslcacert=/etc/pki/tls/certs/ca-bundle.crt
metadata_expire=300
pkg_gpgcheck=1
autorefresh=1
type=rpm-md

[teradici-pcoip-client-beta-source]
name=teradici-pcoip-client-beta-source
baseurl=https://dl.teradici.com/vUJtPyh2fJdAXVJZ/pcoip-client-beta/rpm/el/7/SRPMS
repo_gpgcheck=1
enabled=1
gpgkey=https://dl.teradici.com/vUJtPyh2fJdAXVJZ/pcoip-client-beta/gpg.4581DD6ACC910D6F.key
gpgcheck=1
sslverify=1
sslcacert=/etc/pki/tls/certs/ca-bundle.crt
metadata_expire=300
pkg_gpgcheck=1
autorefresh=1
type=rpm-md

1 Like

/etc/yum.repos.d/pcoip.rep

Is empty

Not really.

No, creating symlinks to system files is not a great idea. First, it isn’t trivial to do and maintain, and then even if it somehow makes this work, it’ll break everything else that needs these files—which is all of the software in the Fedora repositories including your desktop, browser, etc. etc…


The issue here isn’t merely that “the files are missing”. This particular software has been built using different versions of libraries, on a different OS, for a different OS. So it can not just be used on any other OS that’s not compatible. Fedora is not compatible with RHEL etc. because the versions of libraries in Fedora is almost always different to the versions on RHEL (because Fedora moves much quicker than RHEL).

Here’s an example:

This tells us that this tool was built with a particular version of the openssl shared object that is available on RHEL. On Fedora, that version is not available. Here’s what I have on my Fedora 36:

$ rpmls openssl-libs | grep libssl
lrwxrwxrwx  /usr/lib64/libssl.so.3
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/lib64/libssl.so.3.0.2

These two versions of shared libraries are very different—the whole ABI would’ve changed given the shared object version there (0.10 vs 3.x).

The same applies to libva and so on:

vs

$ rpmls libva | grep libva.so
lrwxrwxrwx  /usr/lib64/libva.so.2
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/lib64/libva.so.2.1400.0

So the only thing i can suggest is that you get in touch with the developers/providers and ask them to provide a build for Fedora. Even if this is not an rpm, something like a statically built binary would work too. If they’re building for RHEL already, building for Fedora should not be too hard for them (but again, depends on what versions of libraries etc. they are working with).

If you are paying customer, they should (hopefully) listen to you.

I expect this is proprietary software? Otherwise we could’ve looked at helping you build it for Fedora?

Thank you for all the info, this is really helpful.

Yes, the company I work for is a paying customer of the software.
I will be going through our rep to help discuss how realistic it would be to provide a software client for Fedora.

Unfortunately, I believe the company focus is not on the software clients as Zero Clients are becoming the more popular solution and require far less support.

I think I will need to go back to Ubuntu for the time being.

Thank you to everyone that helped get my head around the issue.

Cheers

1 Like

Another very workable solution that would not require major changes in the software would be to ask them to provide either an appimage or a flatpak version so it could be installed and operate on multiple distros easily.

An appimage or flatpak would be self-contained and have all the needed libraries included without overwriting the system libraries.

2 Likes

I will also include this in the suggestion

1 Like

So just updating, the company seems uninterested in creating or maintaining the client software.
It seems they have been purchased by HP and their main user base consists of windows and mac users.
Is there anyway to produce the appimage or flatpak from the deb repo?

1 Like