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

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

> 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.
>
>> 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.
I don't know where the package comes from but it's a broken package and
has something with chrome in the name. This package is the reason why the
teams RPM can be installed and doesn't work. Without this broken package
the new teams package could NOT have been installed and break.

Simon