Bug 27199

Summary:	I can't install Megasync
Product:	Mageia	Reporter:	Jose Manuel López <joselp>
Component:	RPM Packages	Assignee:	Mageia Bug Squad <bugsquad>
Status:	RESOLVED INVALID	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	Normal	CC:	davidwhodgins
Version:	Cauldron
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Source RPM:	Megasync	CVE:
Status comment:

Description Jose Manuel López 2020-08-25 20:24:15 CEST

Description of problem: I can't install megasync, this appears in konsole:

[jose@localhost ~]$ su -
Contraseña: 
[root@localhost ~]# urpmi megasync
No se puede instalar el paquete pedido:
megasync-4.3.1.0-1bdk.mga7.x86_64 (debido a que no se satisfizo libcryptopp.so.7()(64bit))
¿Seguir adelante con la instalación? (S/n) s
Si bien algunos paquetes podrían haber sido instalados, hubo problemas.
No se puede instalar el paquete pedido:
megasync-4.3.1.0-1bdk.mga7.x86_64 (debido a que no se satisfizo libcryptopp.so.7()(64bit))
¿Seguir adelante con la instalación?
[root@localhost ~]#


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Mageia 8 Beta 1 and Megasync


How reproducible: Install megasync from urpmi in konsole or rpmdrake


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install megasync
2. The bug appears, library no found.
3. Megasync don't install.

Comment 1 Aurelien Oudelet 2020-08-25 20:51:27 CEST

Hi José,

Thanks reporting this but you reported this about Cauldron (Mageia 8 B1) but package megasync you named is megasync-4.3.1.0-1bdk.mga7, a Mageia 7 package.

Is this correct?

Comment 2 Dave Hodgins 2020-08-25 21:22:58 CEST

It's a third party package that is violating Mageia's trademark by using
mga7 in it's package name, which causes confusion in bug reports.

The package megasync is not in Mageia 7 or Cauldron.

In Mageia 7,
$ rpm -q -f /usr/lib64/libcryptopp.so.7.0.0
lib64cryptopp7-7.0.0-1.1.mga7

In Mageia 8,
$ rpm -q -f /usr/lib64/libcryptopp.so.8.0.0
lib64cryptopp8-8.2.0-2.mga8

Either get a newer version of megasync that uses lib64cryptopp8, or manually
install the lib64cryptopp7 from the Mageia 7 repositories, such as
https://mirror.math.princeton.edu/pub/mageia/distrib/7.1/x86_64/media/core/updates/lib64cryptopp7-7.0.0-1.1.mga7.x86_64.rpm

Closing the bug as invalid since it is about a package that is not supplied
by Mageia.

Status: NEW => RESOLVED
CC: (none) => davidwhodgins
Resolution: (none) => INVALID

Comment 3 katnatek 2020-08-25 21:50:05 CEST

(In reply to Dave Hodgins from comment #2)
> It's a third party package that is violating Mageia's trademark by using
> mga7 in it's package name, which causes confusion in bug reports.
> 
> The package megasync is not in Mageia 7 or Cauldron.
> 

Its a package from the blogdrake repository and the reporter knows its not officially supported by mageia so he must report this on blogdrake.

BTW, the blogdrake rpms use mga as part of the suffix as a way of remark that are destinated to use in mageia, i the mga suffix bother to mageia we condider remove the from the next release.

Comment 4 Jose Manuel López 2020-08-25 21:54:07 CEST

True in what they comment, sorry for the error. I had not realized that it is from the blogdrake repositories that I installed to perform some verifications with some applications.

The error is fine as invalid. We consider it closed.

Comment 5 Dave Hodgins 2020-08-25 22:29:55 CEST

(In reply to katnatek from comment #3)
> (In reply to Dave Hodgins from comment #2)
> Its a package from the blogdrake repository and the reporter knows its not
> officially supported by mageia so he must report this on blogdrake.
 
> BTW, the blogdrake rpms use mga as part of the suffix as a way of remark
> that are destinated to use in mageia, i the mga suffix bother to mageia we
> condider remove the from the next release.

The should be using something like bdm7, or any other string that makes it
clear that it is not a mga7 package specifically to avoid confusion like
the initial report here.

Comment 6 katnatek 2020-09-03 21:05:53 CEST

(In reply to Dave Hodgins from comment #5)

> The should be using something like bdm7, or any other string that makes it
> clear that it is not a mga7 package specifically to avoid confusion like
> the initial report here.

As i understand is possible to use <personal suffix>_mga<version> , so is style that we use from 8 and superior