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
$
--
Leon
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
