On 16.07.21 13:28, Simon Matter wrote: >> On 16.07.21 12:39, Simon Matter wrote: >>>> On 16/07/21 10:19 pm, Simon Matter wrote: >>>>>> I think you missed from a different post where the package was >>>>>> created >>>>>> by a different 3rd-party, not google. So how else would you expect >>>>>> the >>>>>> 3rd-party package to satisfy the dependency? >>>>> >>>>> I didn't say the chrome packages came from google. But, the TO has >>>>> some >>>>> chrome RPM installed which "provides" the libstdc++ version required >>>>> by >>>>> teams, but doesn't really provide this libstdc++ version to the whole >>>>> system. That's why the RPM is broken, it claims to provide a libstdc++ >>>>> version which it doesn't really provide. >>>> >>>> And I ask again, how else would you expect the package to satisfy the >>>> dependency in chrome for the newer libstdc++? The package was >>>> explicitly created to allow chrome to run on an older system that >>>> doesn't have the newer libstdc++, by rights it should work with other >>>> programs that need a newer libstdc++ as well provided that they set >>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH appropriately. So it does, in fact, provide the stated >>>> dependency for the entire system, you just have to tell programs that >>>> need it where to find it. >>> >>> And that's where it breaks the rules! It "provides" something that it >>> doesn't really provide. That's NOT allowed with RPM because it breaks >>> other applications. It breaks the whole meaning of dependency tracking >>> of >>> the RPM system. That's why the mentioned chrome package has to be >>> considered broken. >>> >> >> $ LANG=C rpm -qp --provides >> https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm >> warning: >> https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm: >> Header V4 DSA/SHA1 Signature, key ID 7fac5991: NOKEY >> google-chrome = 91.0.4472.164 >> google-chrome-stable = 91.0.4472.164-1 >> google-chrome-stable(x86-64) = 91.0.4472.164-1 >> $ >> > > Hi Leon, > > The problem package is not from google but seems to be > 'chrome-deps-stable' from wherever it comes. > <snip> > > That's why teams fails here, Microsoft is NOT the culprit in this case :-) > Well, I see a lot of such customer/user behavior: "Doing _everything_ just to get to the goal". For example installing things that just do not fit and then wondering about the implications. Imagine a bakery that uses blue wall colour instead blueberrys. Just to get the cup cakes with a blue touch. Actually it is a naturally approach to getting things to work. So, not sure whom to blame. For the OP: as someone has already suggested, flatpaks do provide a coherent environment to execute proprietary software. Not sure how mature flatpak is under C7 but teams works here under C8/flatpak well. Alternatively a teams session do also work with the chromium browser directly. https://flatpak.org/setup/CentOS/ https://flathub.org/apps/search/teams BTW: @OP Maybe its time to clean up your repository setup and the above mentioned obscure package ... -- Leon