CentOS - Jul 2021 - Microsoft Teams on CentOS 7. Does the latest version work?

> 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

On 16/07/21 8:41 pm, Simon Matter wrote:
>> 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.
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?
> IMHO, if it's like that, then the chrome packages are crap :-)
The chrome packages are not built for CentOS or supported on such, it is 
coincidence that they happened to have worked in the past.  They will 
continue to work if the libstdc++ dependency is satisfied.
> What happens if you try this:
> 
> $ export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/google/chrome/lib
> $ teams....
Better to just do:
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/google/chrome/lib teams

...or if you have a desktop launcher that you use, edit the command and 
add this to the beginning:

env LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/google/chrome/lib


Peter