> On 15/07/2021 12:57, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 05:30, Toralf Lund <toralf.lund at pgs.com> wrote: >>> On 15/07/2021 09:37, Gianluca Cecchi wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 2:03 PM Toralf Lund <toralf.lund at pgs.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Does anyone else run Microsoft Teams on CentOS 7? >>>>> >>>>> I've used it for a while now, and it's generally worked reasonably >>>>> well. >>>>> However, after upgrading to the latest version from the Microsoft >>>>> repos, >>>>> it doesn't start up properly. Processes start and remain active until >>>>> I >>>>> give up and kill them, but I can't see a window or a tray icon or >>>>> anything. >>>>> >>>>> Has anyone else seen this? Is there anything I can do to make the GUI >>>>> appear? >>>>> >>>>> This is not a big deal as everything just works fine if I revert to >>>>> the >>>>> previous release, but it would be interesting to know if this is a >>>>> general problem with the software, or I have some weird issue with my >>>>> system. >>>>> >>>>> The release that doesn't work is 1.4.00.13653. The one that does is >>>>> 1.4.00.7556. >>>>> >>>>> - Toralf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> At the end I think you have something broken with your repo config or >>>> you >>>> installed forcing something. >>> Like I said elsewhere, it turns out that it's a little more complicated >>> than that. The libraries are actually "provided", but they're not on >>> the >>> library path. >>> >> That isn't provided.. > > It's quite definitely provided. I'm mean in the rpm/package install > context, of course, which is what we were discussing. > > The libraries/abi versions are also provided in the sense that the > actually exist on my system, event though teams can't find them right now. > >> that is a private copy that chrome bundles >> itself to use. It may or may not have all of the library calls in it >> (the chrome upstream may only turn on things it knows it wants), and >> it may have changes which the team doesn't expect. > > I think you're missing my point. The teams install works because the > package *claims* that it provides everything teams wants (besides what's > in the "normal" system libs.) Whether it works or not is a different > question. > > It most likely will, though, if I set up the necessary LD_PRELOAD etc. > (haven't been able to try because I needed to have a Teams version i > *knew* worked.) It's unlikely that there are "changes which the team > doesn't expect"; I'm reasonably sure this is a straight > rebuild/repackaging of newer upstream "libstdc++". It's also not an > integral part of Chrome, but rather a package someone related to the > Fedora team made to allow a certain "upstream" versions of chrome to > work on a certain "downstream" OS release. > >> >> Also teams is looking for `rpm -q --whatprovides >> 'libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.20)(64bit)'` and you typed >> `rpm -q --whatprovides 'libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.22)(64bit)'` > > No, it looks for several different "libstdc++.so.6" versions, and the > "chrome" package provides them all. I just listed one of them to > illustrate the point. I'm not sure that's true. You said your chrome package provides it all but from what I see, it installs its libs into /opt/google/chrome/lib. But, your system doesn't know about private libs installed in /opt and I think the chrome package should NOT "provide" its private libs in its RPM packages. IMHO, if it's like that, then the chrome packages are crap :-) What happens if you try this: $ export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/google/chrome/lib $ teams.... Or maybe even add $ export LD_PRELOAD=/opt/google/chrome/lib/libstdc++.so.6 Regards, Simon