[gentoo-user] chrome vs. wayland wierdness

[gentoo-user] chrome vs. wayland wierdness

[Grant Edwards]

I just did my usual

  emerge --sync
  emerge -auvND world

Everything seemed to be fine (IIRC, it upgraded chrome).

  emerge --depeclean --ask

That removed a couple wayland packages (yay! I didn't really want
wayland).  Then it warned me

   !!! existing preserved libs:
   >>> package: dev-libs/wayland-1.21.0
    *  - /usr/lib64/libwayland-client.so.0
    *  - /usr/lib64/libwayland-client.so.0.21.0
    *      used by /opt/google/chrome/libGLESv2.so (www-client/google-chrome-104.0.5112.79)
   Use emerge @preserved-rebuild to rebuild packages using these libraries

I do as instructed and run 'emerge @preserved-rebuild' and it reinstalls chrome.

But a subsequent emerge --depeclean --ask again produces the same
warnings about wayland libraries that have been preserved.

Are the dependencies for chrome broken?

Re: [gentoo-user] chrome vs. wayland wierdness

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1187 bytes --]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 21:49:59 -0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:

> verything seemed to be fine (IIRC, it upgraded chrome).
> 
>   emerge --depeclean --ask
> 
> That removed a couple wayland packages (yay! I didn't really want
> wayland).  Then it warned me
> 
>    !!! existing preserved libs:
>    >>> package: dev-libs/wayland-1.21.0  
>     *  - /usr/lib64/libwayland-client.so.0
>     *  - /usr/lib64/libwayland-client.so.0.21.0
>     *      used by /opt/google/chrome/libGLESv2.so
> (www-client/google-chrome-104.0.5112.79) Use emerge @preserved-rebuild
> to rebuild packages using these libraries
> 
> I do as instructed and run 'emerge @preserved-rebuild' and it
> reinstalls chrome.
> 
> But a subsequent emerge --depeclean --ask again produces the same
> warnings about wayland libraries that have been preserved.
> 
> Are the dependencies for chrome broken?

chrome is a binary package, unlike chromium, so rebuilding will not change
the libraries it depends on. It sounds like those wayland packages should
not have been depcleaned and are a requirement for chrome.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Zmodem has bigger bits, softer blocks, and tighter ASCII

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: chrome vs. wayland wierdness

[Grant Edwards]

On 2022-08-04, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 21:49:59 -0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>>   emerge --depeclean --ask
>> 
>> That removed a couple wayland packages (yay! I didn't really want
>> wayland).  Then it warned me
>> 
>>    !!! existing preserved libs:
>>    >>> package: dev-libs/wayland-1.21.0  
>>     *  - /usr/lib64/libwayland-client.so.0
>>     *  - /usr/lib64/libwayland-client.so.0.21.0
>>     *      used by /opt/google/chrome/libGLESv2.so
>> (www-client/google-chrome-104.0.5112.79) Use emerge @preserved-rebuild
>> to rebuild packages using these libraries
>> 
>> I do as instructed and run 'emerge @preserved-rebuild' and it
>> reinstalls chrome.
>> 
>> But a subsequent emerge --depeclean --ask again produces the same
>> warnings about wayland libraries that have been preserved.
>> 
>> Are the dependencies for chrome broken?
>
> chrome is a binary package, unlike chromium, so rebuilding will not change
> the libraries it depends on.

Right. I didn't expect that it would.

> It sounds like those wayland packages should not have been
> depcleaned and are a requirement for chrome.

I'm pretty sure that wayland was originally installed a few weeks ago
to satisfy a dependency of chrome that had been newly added (and now
apparently removed).

This bug might be related:

   https://bugs.gentoo.org/858191

It seems to mostly be a debate over whether wayland is really required
for the chrome binary package. Removing wayland reportedly breaks
webGL, sometimes, for some people, depending on how chrome is invoked.

If I read that issue's history correctly...