ubuntu-desktop package could depend on libstdc++5 (lots of thirdy party software requires this library)

Bug #31218 reported by Mantas Kriaučiūnas on 2006-02-12
8
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Baltix
Medium
Unassigned
ubuntu-meta (Ubuntu)
Medium
Matthias Klose

Bug Description

ubuntu-desktop package could depend on libstdc++5 package, because lots of thirdy party software requires this library.

For example for some video from internet (e.g. www.bbc.co.uk ) I need to install real-player. I go to www.real.com and press on link "Real Player for Linux" "Free download" and also on "Installation Instructions".
Then I get window with real player Installation Instructions:

- Ensure that the .bin file you downloaded is executable. You can make the .bin file executable by running the "chmod a+x RealPlayer10GOLD.bin" command from a terminal window.

- Run the .bin file by typing "./RealPlayer10GOLD.bin". Follow the prompts provided to finish installing the player.

- When you launch the player for the first time, a set-up assistant will take you through configuring your player.

- Enjoy your RealPlayer10 for Linux!

So, I've did chmod a+x RealPlayer10GOLD.bin and then tried to run this file:

ubuntu@baltix-linux:~/Desktop$ ./RealPlayer10GOLD.bin
./RealPlayer10GOLD.bin: error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

Other example would be ATI video drivers (fglrx) - they also needs libstdc++5 library.

Sounds all too familiar. And even though it is unreasonable to include any lib an app might request, it's also unreasonable to expect an end user to know what to do in such a case?

David Wynn (wynn-david) wrote :

If the fglrx video drivers require the library -- they should include a requirement on the library. Now that we're moving to libstdc++6, any Ubuntu packages that continue to require libstdc++5 either need to migrate (preferred) or have the appropriate requirement.

In the case of RealPlayer, you're asking Ubuntu to protect you from everything you may download from the internet. Ubuntu should be ensuring that all Ubuntu packages (especially "main" packages) are all set up correctly with the right requirements. Once the user starts downloading their own stuff from the web they are truly on their own. If you want to file a bug regarding RealPlayer, file it as an upstream bug -- RealPlayer needs to migrate to current libraries.

I don't see any reason why Ubuntu-Desktop should have this deprecated library as part of its requirements.

Matt Zimmerman (mdz) wrote :

fglrx does depend on this library.

It's not entirely unreasonable to have a default set of compatibility libraries installed, e.g. we provide libxp6 for Java's sake.

Matthias, what's your opinion?

Changed in ubuntu-meta:
assignee: nobody → doko
Matthias Klose (doko) wrote :

sure we can seed it for i386; for amd64 it's in ia32-libs, and we don't need it as a native library. will do it on Friday if nobody disagrees.

sam tygier (samtygier) wrote :

no need for this to still be unconfirmed.

Changed in ubuntu-meta:
status: Unconfirmed → Confirmed
Matt Zimmerman (mdz) wrote :

This was seeded ages ago

Changed in ubuntu-meta:
status: Confirmed → Fix Released
Dennis Kaarsemaker (dennis) wrote :

Wouter, the bugtask for baltix was added by the baltix developer. Please don't remove it.

David Wynn (wynn-david) wrote :

I know this is an old bug -- but its also still open.

Wouldn't this kind of thing fall under LSB compliance? Ubuntu 8.04 and 9.04 are tested as LSB 4.0 compliant. Ubuntu 6.06 is LSB 3.1 compliant. (See https://www.linuxfoundation.org/lsb-cert/productdir.php?by_lsb) I don't see Baltix listed.

Its my understanding, that distribution compliance indicates that we have the libraries available for any LSB-compliant application to "just work" with the system. Now, for a specific computer to see such functionality, they may need to install the LSB meta-packages, so it would be a good thing to have the [u|ku|xu|edu]buntu-desktop meta-packages at least suggest (if not recommend / require) the main lsb meta-packages. If the user chooses not to install such functionality, that's their option.

If an application found on the web is not keeping lsb-compliant libraries, then it would be the responsibility of the community and community individuals to encourage the application to become lsb-compliant so that the software just works in Linux -- almost any Linux box. Note that each generation of lsb ensures backwards compatability (for a reasonable time period) with previous generations. That allows lsb-compliant applications time to evolve to newer libraries, as technologies continue to advance.

As for Baltix, if they have not already, I would encourage them to seek lsb certification so that they also have the necessary functionality to support lsb-compliant applications. Then bugs like this should be able to be closed.

Przemek K. (azrael) on 2009-11-13
Changed in baltix:
status: New → Fix Released
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers