Hi remmote desktop experts,
I get the following when trying to install echovnc:

[root@localhost jf]# cd Desktop
[root@localhost Desktop]# rpm -Uvh echovnc-1.1-1.i386.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
libcrypto.so.6 is needed by echovnc-1.1-1.i386
[root@localhost Desktop]#
In checking with this forum a suggestion was made to link
libcrypto.so.6 to libcrypto.so.0.9.8 for another problem-the poster did that and resolved the problem.
I did the same thing and put soft links into every lib on the system, (which is PCLinuxOS 2009.2)Rpm versions are 4.4.6 on the system and 3.0 on the package which is downloaded from sourceforge.What is puzzling is why a link should be made from libcrypto.so.6 to libcrypto.so.0.9.8.
The latter being according to the numbers a lot lower than the former as regards revision. In addition why doesnt the dependency get resolved as links from the dependency are in every lib.
jfmoran

Welcome to Linux Questions.

*(lib)openssl files :
'libcrypto.so.0.9.8' = real name
'libcrypto.so.6 = so name , but only Fedora / Redhat.

'libssl.so.0.9.8' = real name
'libssl.so.6' = so name , Fedora, RH.

Goes back at least to Fedora 5. Before that : no so name, Fedora 1.

If your choice had been the also available Suse package, echovnc,
these dependancies would have been different.
.....

These are the conventions for creating shared libs , § 3.1.1 :
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Librar...libraries.html

But you don't have to follow those convention, or at least
somebody don't do that.

About real name :
libmylib or libmylib.so : both no extension, and the so ,
mostly used as a link to specify the version to link against
when creating app's with that lib , also exist as real names.

Version : Say start with real name libmylib.so.0.0.0 , the
so name can be libmylib.so.0 .
When the versioning has reached e.g libmylib.so.0.9.8 , the
so name can very well be libmylib.so.6
.....