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. > It may have worked before because older teams required a libstdc++ version > which is available on CentOS 7. Correct. > The broken chrome packages are the reason why RPM allowed the new teams > version being installed. Again, they are not broken, they are suitable for the systems they were built for, which would be current Fedora systems (which happen to have a newer libstdc++). > But because the chrome package doesn't really > provide to the systems what it claims, You're confusing here. I assume you mean the package that provides the libstdc++ dependency which happens to have chrome in it's name but is not actually chrome and does not come from google or chrome. > teams won't work an is in a broken state. teams should work if LD_LIBRARY_PATH is set appropriately. Peter