Mailing List Archive: chrome vs. wayland wierdness

chrome vs. wayland wierdness

Aug 4, 2022, 2:49 PM

Post #1 of 3 (193 views)

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: chrome vs. wayland wierdness [ In reply to ]

neil at digimed

Aug 4, 2022, 4:12 PM

Post #2 of 3 (193 views)

Permalink

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

Re: chrome vs. wayland wierdness [ In reply to ]

grant.b.edwards at gmail

Aug 4, 2022, 5:35 PM

Post #3 of 3 (193 views)

Permalink

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...