Precompiled on Ubuntu 22.04: "error while loading shared libraries: libssl.so.1.1: cannot open..."

[haijinSk]

My first test of the precompiled 0.9.2 Scryer from "scryer-prolog_ubuntu-20.04.zip" on my Ubuntu 22.04.3 ends like this:

./scryer-prolog: error while loading shared libraries: libssl.so.1.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

Maybe it is intended to be so, meaning there is an explicit prerequisite, "ubuntu-20.04", to have certain version of OpenSSL, maybe not... But to my ears "1" does not sound good when the word security is involved.

Personally I have no problem with compiling via Rust, but I like the idea "unzip and go".

[pmoura]

IIRC, Ubuntu 20 bundles OpenSSL 1.1 while Ubuntu 22 bundles OpenSSL 3.x. That likely explains the error as the binaries seems to be generated on Ubuntu 20 as the archive name suggests.

[pmoura]

Btw, you can install OpenSSL 1.1 on Ubuntu 22 to solve this error.

[haijinSk]

@pmoura Thank you for the explanation and I've found this:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/72133316/libssl-so-1-1-cannot-open-shared-object-file-no-such-file-or-directory

[haijinSk]

After the explanation by @pmoura (again thank you) it seems to me to be explicit (at least a user of Ubuntu 22.04 has "no right to complain"), though someone like me can be very confused and reluctant to solve it via installation with an overtone of "downgrading".

I think and I may be wrong, but if someone with Ubuntu 22.04 is willing to solve this "ubuntu-20.04.zip" problem via the installation, he or she can elegantly use the Rust language system to compile Scryer as well.

[triska]

Is it possible (and desirable) to automatically provide suitable binaries for different Ubuntu versions? (@infogulch ?)

[haijinSk]

And I've found #2013

[infogulch]

If you would, try to run the ubuntu 22.04 binary on this build to see if that fixes it: https://github.com/infogulch/scryer-prolog/actions/runs/6323046069

[haijinSk]

@infogulch Yes, great! The new v0.9.4 precompiled binary for 22.04 works. Thank you very much for addressing this...

https://github.com/infogulch/scryer-prolog/releases/tag/v0.9.4

[infogulch]

Is this issue resolved? (publishing another release notwithstanding #2044)

[haijinSk]

@infogulch My layperson view/understanding: In this moment, as I'm writing this, it is resolved: in the version v0.9.4, my layperson understanding is that you are providing that "future" version and I thank you very much, I appreciate it, I appreciate all the hard and amazing work of all of you Scryer's contributors/developers. But v0.9.4 is not the official "zip" release yet. As I understand it, it is still v0.9.2.

So I can imagine a person with Ubuntu 22.04, unziping official release v0.9.2 (as I understand it) and: "... error while loading shared libraries: libssl.so.1.1: cannot open..."

I think it is better to not close this issue, until the new official release. The "Ubuntu 22.04" person could find this explanation of the "error while loading shared libraries..."

I apologize, if I'm wrong in any sense. Thank you very much.

[haijinSk]

@infogulch I think, I was answering "why this issue is still open", but it is not you question. I apologize.

My additional version: Yes, it is resolved. You resolved/fixed it very quickly, instantly. Adding to the process the compilation for Ubuntu 22.04. I have no idea how (I'm not a develper, hardly a user of github comments) and how this process works, but from my point of view, it was like a magic (you did it instantly), a magic, except, in this case, it is talent, knowledge, experience, time, hard work and the sense of community of someone: you. I'm using the "zip" v0.9.4 Ubuntu 22.04 version; it works for me and I love it.

Thank you very much.

[infogulch]

I appreciate your gratitude!

Yes I intentionally asked a narrow question, but you did correctly see the implication that I think this issue could be closed as a result. In my opinion, referencing this closed issue in #2044 as another reason why a new release should be created makes slightly more sense from an issue tracking perspective.

But as soon as we spend time discussing it we've already lost the benefit of slightly reducing the number of issues, which was the intention behind my narrow wording. Alas, here we are. 😆 That said, I'm satisfied either way. I am also looking forward to the next official release. Cheers.

[haijinSk]

@infogulch Thank you for the explanation. I was looking at that only from a user perspective (as I think a user might see it), my only perspective at that moment. Thank you.