Update excludelist: removing libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 per #145 #146

fusion809 · 2016-11-21T21:20:35Z

Per title, removing libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 from excludelist per issue #145.

probonopd · 2016-11-22T00:46:51Z

Rather than just deleting it, please comment it out and add a comment describing why it cannot be assumed to be part of each target system. Thanks!

Isn't this part of GTK+ 2 which we assume to be part of the base system?

fusion809 · 2016-11-22T00:51:54Z

Well it wasn't part of Fedora 24, so if it is part of the assumption, it's a faulty assumption, rofl. This is the GNOME edition of Fedora 24 too, so of all desktop environments one would assume it'd be the one to provide this library if it is a GTK+ 2 one. I'm working on the edit.

fusion809 · 2016-11-22T00:53:02Z

Done.

probonopd · 2016-11-22T18:58:08Z

Could it be that a similarly-but-slightly-differently-named file exists on Fedora? Maybe we could symlink that instead? I still think this is a core part of GTK+ 2.0...

fusion809 · 2016-11-22T19:12:21Z

You're right, except it's not similarly named it's identically named:

$ find /usr/lib64 -name "libgdk-x11*"
/usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
/usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0.2400.31
/usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so

probonopd · 2016-11-22T19:14:54Z

So, why doesn't it use it then? Why should we bundle another one?

fusion809 · 2016-11-22T19:17:03Z

Don't know. But it causes this error, maybe it's related to the specific version of this library? Or maybe it's because it's looking for this library in /lib64 instead of /usr/lib64.

probonopd · 2016-11-22T19:19:10Z

Please run with LD_DEBUG=libs ./the.AppImage and look for errors. Or sudo strace -eopen -f the.AppImage

fusion809 · 2016-11-22T19:42:14Z

LD_DEBUG=libs ./<AppImage> on Fedora 24 gave: http://paste2.org/4J7swGXk. strace gave http://paste2.org/Ph6558m9.

fusion809 · 2016-11-22T19:43:43Z

Based on the debug libs output I think I am right, the library provided by Fedora is a different version to that required by the AppImage.

probonopd · 2016-11-22T19:44:26Z

Are you sure that you ran the strace command with sudo?

probonopd · 2016-11-22T19:44:41Z

Based on the debug libs output I think I am right, the library provided by Fedora is a different version to that required by the AppImage.

Looking at which output?

fusion809 · 2016-11-22T19:47:21Z

first comment no, didn't realize it was necessary, one sec I'll do that: http://paste2.org/Ph6558m9. Second comment based on:

  2173:	find library=libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 [0]; searching
 2173:	 search path=/tmp/.mount_w2XqD4/usr/bin/../lib		(RPATH from file /tmp/.mount_w2XqD4/usr/bin/geany)
 2173:	  trying file=/tmp/.mount_w2XqD4/usr/bin/../lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	 search path=./lib/tls/x86_64:./lib/tls:./lib/x86_64:./lib:./lib/i386-linux-gnu/tls/x86_64:./lib/i386-linux-gnu/tls:./lib/i386-linux-gnu/x86_64:./lib/i386-linux-gnu:./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/tls/x86_64:./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/tls:./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/x86_64:./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu:./lib32/tls/x86_64:./lib32/tls:./lib32/x86_64:./lib32:./lib64/tls/x86_64:./lib64/tls:./lib64/x86_64:./lib64		(LD_LIBRARY_PATH)
 2173:	  trying file=./lib/tls/x86_64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib/tls/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib/x86_64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib/i386-linux-gnu/tls/x86_64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib/i386-linux-gnu/tls/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib/i386-linux-gnu/x86_64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib/i386-linux-gnu/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/tls/x86_64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/tls/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/x86_64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib32/tls/x86_64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib32/tls/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib32/x86_64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib32/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib64/tls/x86_64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib64/tls/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib64/x86_64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	  trying file=./lib64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 2173:	 search cache=/etc/ld.so.cache
 2173:	  trying file=/lib64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0

fusion809 · 2016-11-22T19:48:28Z

Oops no I mean this output:

      2173:	find library=libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 [0]; searching
      2173:	 search path=/tmp/.mount_w2XqD4/usr/bin/../lib		(RPATH from file /tmp/.mount_w2XqD4/usr/bin/geany)
      2173:	  trying file=/tmp/.mount_w2XqD4/usr/bin/../lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	 search path=./lib/tls/x86_64:./lib/tls:./lib/x86_64:./lib:./lib/i386-linux-gnu/tls/x86_64:./lib/i386-linux-gnu/tls:./lib/i386-linux-gnu/x86_64:./lib/i386-linux-gnu:./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/tls/x86_64:./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/tls:./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/x86_64:./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu:./lib32/tls/x86_64:./lib32/tls:./lib32/x86_64:./lib32:./lib64/tls/x86_64:./lib64/tls:./lib64/x86_64:./lib64		(LD_LIBRARY_PATH)
      2173:	  trying file=./lib/tls/x86_64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib/tls/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib/x86_64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib/i386-linux-gnu/tls/x86_64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib/i386-linux-gnu/tls/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib/i386-linux-gnu/x86_64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib/i386-linux-gnu/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/tls/x86_64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/tls/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/x86_64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib32/tls/x86_64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib32/tls/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib32/x86_64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib32/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib64/tls/x86_64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib64/tls/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib64/x86_64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	  trying file=./lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
      2173:	 search cache=/etc/ld.so.cache
      2173:	  trying file=/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0

fusion809 · 2016-11-22T22:07:17Z

While we're on the topic of blacklisted libraries libselinux.so.1 may be necessary as Arch Linux gives the error (according to geany/geany#1303):

zenity, kdialog, Xdialog missing. Skipping ./bin//geany.wrapper.
/tmp/.mount_3N7xOv/usr/bin/geany: error while loading shared libraries: libselinux.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

b4n · 2016-11-22T22:32:23Z

#145 (comment)

rather than including libgdk-x11, I guess X11 libs should be excluded (and here yours override the system's, and miss that symbol the system's gdk-x11 requires)

probonopd · 2016-11-23T17:38:48Z

@b4n may be right here - needs to be verified by experimentation on different distros.

darealshinji · 2016-12-04T12:30:19Z

I also think that very common X11 libs should be excluded by default (libx11, libext6; but not the libxcb* stuff or "rare" libraries that are usually not installed or even dropped by some distros). I would also exclude glib2 and gtk+-2 and their companion libraries (libatk, libgdk*, ...), as those libraries are normally installed by default and they have a very stable API.
Is there a mechanism to easily override or modify the blacklisted libraries and/or Debian packages if that's required or wanted for a certain AppImage?

probonopd · 2016-12-04T12:35:01Z

I also think that very common X11 libs should be excluded by default (libx11, libext6; but not the libxcb* stuff or "rare" libraries that are usually not installed or even dropped by some distros).

Do you know which of these can really be expected to (still) be part of each distro? (even distros using Wayland?)

I would also exclude glib2 and gtk+-2 and their companion libraries (libatk, libgdk*, ...), as those libraries are normally installed by default and they have a very stable API.

You may be right there. Feel free to send a PR but include the rationale as comments in the exclude(deb)list.

Is there a mechanism to easily override or modify the blacklisted libraries and/or Debian packages if that's required or wanted for a certain AppImage?

No, by design. So that we are forced to learn and share the insights (i.e., if we change the blacklist all AppImages benefit from it).

b4n · 2016-12-04T12:36:19Z

but not the libxcb* stuff

Well, on my Debian unstable, libcairo2, which is a dependency of GTK2 and 3 among a lot of things, depends on libxcb, libxcb-shm and libxcb-render.
Basically, I see not much reason to not exclude everything that is a direct dependency of one the the otherwise excluded things.

b4n · 2016-12-04T12:37:35Z

Do you know which of these can really be expected to (still) be part of each distro? (even distros using Wayland?)

I don't know, but I'm kind of afraid that either X is an indirect dependency of the app (e.g. through GTK), or the app is likely not to work on Wayland anyway.

darealshinji · 2016-12-04T12:46:09Z

Well, on my Debian unstable, libcairo2, which is a dependency of GTK2 and 3 among a lot of things, depends on libxcb, libxcb-shm and libxcb-render.
Basically, I see not much reason to not exclude everything that is a direct dependency of one the the otherwise excluded things.

It's better to include the libxcb* stuff because I've already experienced issues with apps being compiled on Ubuntu 12.04 that didn't work on newer versions because of a soname version bump of a libxcb* library.

Taking a quick look into the Ubuntu repositories[1] also reveals that not all libxcb libraries are available on all distros:
libxcb-present0: >= 14.04
libxcb-sync0: 12.04
libxcb-sync1: >= 14.04
libxcb-util0: <= 14.04
libxcb-util1: >= 16.04
...

probonopd · 2016-12-04T12:48:17Z

Basically, I see not much reason to not exclude everything that is a direct dependency of one the the otherwise excluded things.

That kinda makes sense, but how do we know that the same stuff is not a dependency of some app directly, i.e., not through "the otherwise excluded things"?

darealshinji · 2016-12-04T13:46:50Z

Here's a first list based on what's installed on my system and what's available since Ubuntu 12.04: https://gist.github.com/darealshinji/21f368ddb61f4d3cfa303e228bb0e9db

It would of course be a good idea to check if these are all available by default on Live CDs of other distros.

probonopd · 2017-05-25T09:09:46Z

saiarcot895/chromium-ubuntu-build#12 (comment) might be affected by this

Update excludelist

ac8c647

Update excludelist

6adbed2

fusion809 mentioned this pull request Nov 22, 2016

Please remove libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 from excludelist: without it my Geany AppImage fails to run on Fedora 24 #145

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Update excludelist: removing libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 per #145 #146

Update excludelist: removing libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 per #145 #146

fusion809 commented Nov 21, 2016

probonopd commented Nov 22, 2016 •

edited

Loading

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016 •

edited

Loading

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016

probonopd commented Nov 22, 2016

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016 •

edited

Loading

probonopd commented Nov 22, 2016

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016

probonopd commented Nov 22, 2016

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016

probonopd commented Nov 22, 2016

probonopd commented Nov 22, 2016

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016

b4n commented Nov 22, 2016

probonopd commented Nov 23, 2016

darealshinji commented Dec 4, 2016

probonopd commented Dec 4, 2016

b4n commented Dec 4, 2016

b4n commented Dec 4, 2016

darealshinji commented Dec 4, 2016

probonopd commented Dec 4, 2016

darealshinji commented Dec 4, 2016

probonopd commented May 25, 2017

Update excludelist: removing libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 per #145 #146

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Update excludelist: removing libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 per #145 #146

Conversation

fusion809 commented Nov 21, 2016

probonopd commented Nov 22, 2016 • edited Loading

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016 • edited Loading

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016

probonopd commented Nov 22, 2016

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016 • edited Loading

probonopd commented Nov 22, 2016

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016

probonopd commented Nov 22, 2016

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016

probonopd commented Nov 22, 2016

probonopd commented Nov 22, 2016

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016

b4n commented Nov 22, 2016

probonopd commented Nov 23, 2016

darealshinji commented Dec 4, 2016

probonopd commented Dec 4, 2016

b4n commented Dec 4, 2016

b4n commented Dec 4, 2016

darealshinji commented Dec 4, 2016

probonopd commented Dec 4, 2016

darealshinji commented Dec 4, 2016

probonopd commented May 25, 2017

probonopd commented Nov 22, 2016 •

edited

Loading

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016 •

edited

Loading

fusion809 commented Nov 22, 2016 •

edited

Loading