starred/vaultwarden

Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden.git synced 2026-04-25 17:25:57 +03:00

[GH-ISSUE #193] Fails to build with OpenSSL 1.1.1 #96

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-03-03 01:24:50 +03:00 by kerem · 10 comments

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:24:50 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @luusl on GitHub (Sep 19, 2018).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/issues/193

On my machine I have OpenSSL 1.1.1 installed and building fails according to this error:

error: failed to run custom build command for `openssl v0.9.24`
process didn't exit successfully: `/home/build/bitwarden_rs-1.1.0/target/release/build/openssl-70a8875277726cb3/build-script-build` (exit code: 101)
--- stderr
thread 'main' panicked at 'Unable to detect OpenSSL version', /home/build/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/openssl-0.9.24/build.rs:16:14

Originally created by @luusl on GitHub (Sep 19, 2018). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/issues/193 On my machine I have OpenSSL 1.1.1 installed and building fails according to this error: ``` error: failed to run custom build command for `openssl v0.9.24` process didn't exit successfully: `/home/build/bitwarden_rs-1.1.0/target/release/build/openssl-70a8875277726cb3/build-script-build` (exit code: 101) --- stderr thread 'main' panicked at 'Unable to detect OpenSSL version', /home/build/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/openssl-0.9.24/build.rs:16:14 ```

kerem

2026-03-03 01:24:50 +03:00

closed this issue
added the
enhancement

question
labels

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:24:51 +03:00

Author

Owner

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Sep 19, 2018):

This is a problem with the old openssl crate, which doesn't support OpenSSL 1.1.1. (See https://github.com/sfackler/rust-openssl/issues/994).

We have two dependencies that require that openssl version: reqwest, which works fine in its version 0.9 and lettre, which needs a change (See open PR: https://github.com/lettre/lettre/pull/303)

The solutions for now are to:

Revert to openssl 1.0.2
Fork lettre with that PR and change the Cargo.toml to use that instead, also updating the reqwest dependency

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Sep 19, 2018): This is a problem with the old `openssl` crate, which doesn't support OpenSSL 1.1.1. (See https://github.com/sfackler/rust-openssl/issues/994). We have two dependencies that require that `openssl` version: `reqwest`, which works fine in its version 0.9 and `lettre`, which needs a change (See open PR: https://github.com/lettre/lettre/pull/303) The solutions for now are to: - Revert to openssl 1.0.2 - Fork lettre with that PR and change the Cargo.toml to use that instead, also updating the reqwest dependency

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:24:51 +03:00

Author

Owner

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Sep 19, 2018):

I pushed a fix with the second solution I mentioned here: https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs/tree/openssl-fix

Hopefully the PR is merged soon and we can continue using the upstream version directly.

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Sep 19, 2018): I pushed a fix with the second solution I mentioned here: https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs/tree/openssl-fix Hopefully the PR is merged soon and we can continue using the upstream version directly.

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:24:51 +03:00

Author

Owner

@luusl commented on GitHub (Sep 20, 2018):

Thank you, I tried that branch and it works.

@luusl commented on GitHub (Sep 20, 2018): Thank you, I tried that branch and it works.

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:24:51 +03:00

Author

Owner

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Sep 20, 2018):

Okay, that PR was merged, so the OpenSSL fix is now in master. With that, we can mark this issue as fixed.

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Sep 20, 2018): Okay, that PR was merged, so the OpenSSL fix is now in master. With that, we can mark this issue as fixed.

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:24:51 +03:00

Author

Owner

@chris-morgan commented on GitHub (Sep 23, 2018):

Any chance of a bitwarden_rs 1.1.1 release to go with the openssl 1.1.1?

@chris-morgan commented on GitHub (Sep 23, 2018): Any chance of a bitwarden_rs 1.1.1 release to go with the openssl 1.1.1?

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:24:51 +03:00

Author

Owner

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Sep 23, 2018):

You are right, we need a release.
As the changes since the last version are significant, I decided to release a 1.2.0 version. I hope that works for you.

https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs/releases/tag/1.2.0

@mprasil Can you trigger a docker build of the new version, please?

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Sep 23, 2018): You are right, we need a release. As the changes since the last version are significant, I decided to release a 1.2.0 version. I hope that works for you. https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs/releases/tag/1.2.0 @mprasil Can you trigger a docker build of the new version, please?

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:24:51 +03:00

Author

Owner

@mprasil commented on GitHub (Sep 24, 2018):

Just triggered it now, it's gonna take about 6h before all the image versions are done.

@mprasil commented on GitHub (Sep 24, 2018): Just triggered it now, it's gonna take about 6h before all the image versions are done.

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:24:51 +03:00

Author

Owner

@dobunzli commented on GitHub (Sep 24, 2018):

Hello,

Thanks for the work. I want to update the READ ME but just to be sure:

people who wants to use bitwarden_rs on a "ARM7 plateform" (e.g. raspberry pi) have to use mprasil/bitwarden:raspberry instead of mprasil/bitwarden:latest in the different commands
people who want to use bitwarden_rs on a "musl plateform" (e.g. gentoo musl) have to us mprasil/bitwarden:musl instead of mprasil/bitwarden:latest in the different commands

Is that correct ?

Thanks

Dominique

Le 24 sept. 2018 à 13:08, mprasil <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com> a écrit :

Just triggered it now, it's gonna take about 6h before all the image versions are done.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs/issues/193#issuecomment-423940183, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AbTYwl6BNcFjun45iyW5XisFBId3owRCks5ueL0agaJpZM4Wv6LU.

@dobunzli commented on GitHub (Sep 24, 2018): Hello, Thanks for the work. I want to update the READ ME but just to be sure: - people who wants to use bitwarden_rs on a "ARM7 plateform" (e.g. raspberry pi) have to use mprasil/bitwarden:raspberry instead of mprasil/bitwarden:latest in the different commands - people who want to use bitwarden_rs on a "musl plateform" (e.g. gentoo musl) have to us mprasil/bitwarden:musl instead of mprasil/bitwarden:latest in the different commands Is that correct ? Thanks Dominique > Le 24 sept. 2018 à 13:08, mprasil <notifications@github.com <mailto:notifications@github.com>> a écrit : > > Just triggered it now, it's gonna take about 6h before all the image versions are done. > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs/issues/193#issuecomment-423940183>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AbTYwl6BNcFjun45iyW5XisFBId3owRCks5ueL0agaJpZM4Wv6LU>. >

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:24:51 +03:00

Author

Owner

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Sep 24, 2018):

I think it's mprasil/bitwarden:alpine instead of musl, but yeah.

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Sep 24, 2018): I think it's `mprasil/bitwarden:alpine` instead of `musl`, but yeah.

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:24:52 +03:00

Author

Owner

@mprasil commented on GitHub (Sep 24, 2018):

Just a small correction. People on musl platform don't have to use mprasil/bitwarden:alpine, the required platform dependencies are shipped in the image. So as long as you are on AMD64 platform, you can use both images.

I'm thinking that maybe we should replace the default Debian based image and just use Alpine as default?

@mprasil commented on GitHub (Sep 24, 2018): Just a small correction. People on `musl` platform don't have to use `mprasil/bitwarden:alpine`, the required platform dependencies are shipped in the image. So as long as you are on `AMD64` platform, you can use both images. I'm thinking that maybe we should replace the default Debian based image and just use Alpine as default?