subject:"Marble problem\: libicui18n.so.69"

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-11 Thread ToddAndMargo via users


On 3/11/24 00:37, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 3/11/24 00:12, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

# ldd /bin/marble | sort
/bin/marble: /lib64/libQt5Gui.so.5: version `Qt_5.15.3_PRIVATE_API' 
not found (required by 
/usr/lib64/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld/libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5)

 libicudata.so.69 => not found
 libicui18n.so.69 => not found
 libicuuc.so.69 => not found
 libvpx.so.7 => not found


This looks like a big clue and it's still pointing to F36 or F37.
Run the following:
rpm -qf /usr/lib64/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld/libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5
rpm -qi qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld



# rpm -qf /usr/lib64/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld/libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5
file /usr/lib64/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld/libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5 is 
not owned by any package


# rpm -qi qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld
package qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld is not installed

# mv /usr/lib64/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld/libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5 
/usr/lib64/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld/libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5.000


$ marble
KCrash: Application 'marble' crashing...
Segmentation fault (core dumped)

I put it back


And:
   # dnf install qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld

fixed the issue.  Yippee!  Thank you all for all
the help!

-T
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-11 Thread Francis . Montagnac

Hi.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 00:12:04 -0700 ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

> # ldd /bin/marble | sort

This sort may be confusing.

> /bin/marble: /lib64/libQt5Gui.so.5: version `Qt_5.15.3_PRIVATE_API' not 
> found (required by 
> /usr/lib64/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld/libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5)

This lib is probably the culprit.

What RPM provides it ?

  rpm -qf /usr/lib64/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld/libQt5WebEngineCore.so.

More generally, check that all the libs reported by ldd of marble are fc39
ones. For example with:

  rpm -qf $(ldd /usr/bin/marble \
| awk '/=>/ { print $3 }') \
| sort -u \
| grep -v fc39
  

-- 
francis
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-11 Thread Samuel Sieb


On 3/11/24 00:12, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

# ldd /bin/marble | sort
/bin/marble: /lib64/libQt5Gui.so.5: version `Qt_5.15.3_PRIVATE_API' not 
found (required by 
/usr/lib64/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld/libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5)

 libicudata.so.69 => not found
 libicui18n.so.69 => not found
 libicuuc.so.69 => not found
 libvpx.so.7 => not found


This looks like a big clue and it's still pointing to F36 or F37.
Run the following:
rpm -qf /usr/lib64/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld/libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5
rpm -qi qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-11 Thread Jeffrey Walton

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 3:12 AM ToddAndMargo via users
 wrote:
>
>  [...]
> # rpm -qa | grep -i fc | grep -iv fc39
> gpg-pubkey-cfc659b9-5b6eac67
> bitstream-vera-sans-fonts-1.10-48.fc38.noarch
> netcdf-4.9.0-5.fc38.x86_64
> kernel-modules-core-6.5.10-200.fc38.x86_64
> kernel-core-6.5.10-200.fc38.x86_64
> kernel-modules-6.5.10-200.fc38.x86_64
> kernel-6.5.10-200.fc38.x86_64
> kernel-modules-extra-6.5.10-200.fc38.x86_64
> kernel-devel-6.5.10-200.fc38.x86_64

You should follow

when performing a release upgrade. The post-upgrade tasks will cleanup
the old packages.

Jeff
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-11 Thread ToddAndMargo via users


On 3/10/24 22:54, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 3/10/24 22:28, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

On 3/10/24 21:48, Samuel Sieb wrote:
I doubt the bug report will come up with anything since this is 
something very specific to your system.  



Do you have any packages 
from fc37?  


# rpm -qa | grep -i fc37



Do you have any locked packages?

I do not kow how to do that, so I'd have to say "no".


Have you installed any self-built packages?


No.  Amd it really annoys the Wine fplks that I insist obn
only using the wine builds from our repo.


You didn't answer these questions.


# rpm -qa | grep -i fc37


# rpm -qa | grep -i fc | grep -iv fc39
gpg-pubkey-cfc659b9-5b6eac67
bitstream-vera-sans-fonts-1.10-48.fc38.noarch
netcdf-4.9.0-5.fc38.x86_64
kernel-modules-core-6.5.10-200.fc38.x86_64
kernel-core-6.5.10-200.fc38.x86_64
kernel-modules-6.5.10-200.fc38.x86_64
kernel-6.5.10-200.fc38.x86_64
kernel-modules-extra-6.5.10-200.fc38.x86_64
kernel-devel-6.5.10-200.fc38.x86_64




Does "rpm -qf /lib64/*\.so* | grep owned" give you anything?
Mine only shows "p11-kit-trust.so".


  rpm -qf /lib64/*\.so* | grep owned
file /lib64/ld-lsb-x86-64.so is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libavahi-gobject.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libavahi-gobject.so.0.0.5 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libFAudio.so.0.22.10 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libfreeaptx.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libfreeaptx.so.0.1.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libfzclient-commonui-private-3.66.0.so is not owned by any 
package

file /lib64/libfzclient-private-3.66.0.so is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libgdal.so.33.3.7.2 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libgovirt.so.2 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libgovirt.so.2.3.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpdiscovery.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpdiscovery.so.0.0.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpipp.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpipp.so.0.0.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpip.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpip.so.0.0.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpmud.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpmud.so.0.0.6 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libnetsnmp.so.40.1.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libopenfec.so.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libopenfec.so.1.4.2 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libopensc.so.8 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libopensc.so.8.0.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libpipewire-0.3.so.0.361.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libpipewire-0.3.so.0.372.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libroc.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libroc.so.0.2 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libSDL2_image-2.0.so.0.600.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libsmm-local.so.8 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libsmm-local.so.8.0.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/onepin-opensc-pkcs11.so is not owned by any package
file /lib64/opensc-pkcs11.so is not owned by any package
file /lib64/p11-kit-trust.so is not owned by any package
file /lib64/pkcs11-spy.so is not owned by any package


You probably need to get rid of these.  Check the dates on the files with:
ls -l $(rpm -qf /lib64/*\.so* | grep owned | cut -d' ' -f2)


I am thinking of moving them to a tempt directory and seeing
if anything complains


What does "ldd /bin/marble | grep libicu" show?


# ldd /bin/marble | grep libic
 libicui18n.so.73 => /lib64/libicui18n.so.73 (0x7fdf3960)
 libicuuc.so.73 => /lib64/libicuuc.so.73 (0x7fdf3920)
 libicudata.so.73 => /lib64/libicudata.so.73 (0x7fdf2e00)
 libicui18n.so.69 => not found
 libicuuc.so.69 => not found
 libicudata.so.69 => not found


Ok, then show the whole output of "ldd /bin/marble".


# find / -iname libicui18n.so.69\*


# ldd /bin/marble | grep -i libicui
libicui18n.so.73 => /lib64/libicui18n.so.73 (0x7f93f700)
libicui18n.so.69 => not found

# ldd /bin/marble | sort
/bin/marble: /lib64/libQt5Gui.so.5: version `Qt_5.15.3_PRIVATE_API' not 
found (required by 
/usr/lib64/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld/libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5)

/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7f1d3b6bf000)
libacl.so.1 => /lib64/libacl.so.1 (0x7f1d37d4e000)
libasound.so.2 => /lib64/libasound.so.2 (0x7f1d2bf46000)
libastro.so.1 => /lib64/libastro.so.1 (0x7f1d3a7bd000)
libasyncns.so.0 => /lib64/libasyncns.so.0 (0x7f1d2b845000)
libattr.so.1 => /lib64/libattr.so.1 (0x7f1d2bdcd000)
libblkid.so.1 => /lib64/libblkid.so.1 (0x7f1d2bd91000)
libbrotlicommon.so.1 => /lib64/libbrotlicommon.so.1 (0x7f1d2b6b5000)
libbrotlidec.so.1 => /lib64/libbrotlidec.so.1 (0x7f1d2ba5c000)
libbz2.so.1 => /lib64/libbz2.so.1 (0x7f1d2bdd5000)
libcap.so.2 => /lib64/libcap.so.2 (0x7f1d2eebf000)

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread Samuel Sieb


On 3/10/24 22:28, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

On 3/10/24 21:48, Samuel Sieb wrote:
I doubt the bug report will come up with anything since this is 
something very specific to your system.  Do you have any packages from 
fc37?  Do you have any locked packages?  Have you installed any 
self-built packages?


You didn't answer these questions.


Does "rpm -qf /lib64/*\.so* | grep owned" give you anything?
Mine only shows "p11-kit-trust.so".


  rpm -qf /lib64/*\.so* | grep owned
file /lib64/ld-lsb-x86-64.so is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libavahi-gobject.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libavahi-gobject.so.0.0.5 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libFAudio.so.0.22.10 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libfreeaptx.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libfreeaptx.so.0.1.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libfzclient-commonui-private-3.66.0.so is not owned by any 
package

file /lib64/libfzclient-private-3.66.0.so is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libgdal.so.33.3.7.2 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libgovirt.so.2 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libgovirt.so.2.3.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpdiscovery.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpdiscovery.so.0.0.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpipp.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpipp.so.0.0.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpip.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpip.so.0.0.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpmud.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpmud.so.0.0.6 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libnetsnmp.so.40.1.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libopenfec.so.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libopenfec.so.1.4.2 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libopensc.so.8 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libopensc.so.8.0.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libpipewire-0.3.so.0.361.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libpipewire-0.3.so.0.372.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libroc.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libroc.so.0.2 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libSDL2_image-2.0.so.0.600.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libsmm-local.so.8 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libsmm-local.so.8.0.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/onepin-opensc-pkcs11.so is not owned by any package
file /lib64/opensc-pkcs11.so is not owned by any package
file /lib64/p11-kit-trust.so is not owned by any package
file /lib64/pkcs11-spy.so is not owned by any package


You probably need to get rid of these.  Check the dates on the files with:
ls -l $(rpm -qf /lib64/*\.so* | grep owned | cut -d' ' -f2)


What does "ldd /bin/marble | grep libicu" show?


# ldd /bin/marble | grep libic
 libicui18n.so.73 => /lib64/libicui18n.so.73 (0x7fdf3960)
 libicuuc.so.73 => /lib64/libicuuc.so.73 (0x7fdf3920)
 libicudata.so.73 => /lib64/libicudata.so.73 (0x7fdf2e00)
 libicui18n.so.69 => not found
 libicuuc.so.69 => not found
 libicudata.so.69 => not found


Ok, then show the whole output of "ldd /bin/marble".
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread ToddAndMargo via users


On 3/10/24 21:48, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 3/10/24 19:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

On 3/10/24 19:18, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 3/10/24 18:39, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

On 3/10/24 16:52, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 3/10/24 16:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

And this is interesting:

# dnf install libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64
Fedora 39 - x86_64   18 kB/s |  24 kB 
00:01
Fedora 39 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64    4.6 kB/s | 989  B 
00:00
Fedora 39 - x86_64 - Updates 33 kB/s |  23 kB 
00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free 5.7 kB/s | 3.6 kB 
00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free - Updates   6.6 kB/s | 3.9 kB 
00:00

Package libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64 is already installed.
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!


Yes, this is why it isn't working.  You have (I assume) a qt5 
package that is linked with a previous version and somehow wasn't 
updated when libicu was.


# rpm -qa qt* | grep -v fc39



I didn't mean a previous Fedora release.  I meant that something is 
linked against the previous version of libicu.


However, with some investigation, the 69 version was in F37 at the 
latest, so something is strange on your system and is from a previous 
release.  I'm surprised other things aren't breaking.


I am at a loss to figure out who is the culprit.  I will
just have to wait on the bug report


I doubt the bug report will come up with anything since this is 
something very specific to your system.  Do you have any packages from 
fc37?  Do you have any locked packages?  Have you installed any 
self-built packages?


Does "rpm -qf /lib64/*\.so* | grep owned" give you anything?
Mine only shows "p11-kit-trust.so".


 rpm -qf /lib64/*\.so* | grep owned
file /lib64/ld-lsb-x86-64.so is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libavahi-gobject.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libavahi-gobject.so.0.0.5 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libFAudio.so.0.22.10 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libfreeaptx.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libfreeaptx.so.0.1.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libfzclient-commonui-private-3.66.0.so is not owned by any 
package

file /lib64/libfzclient-private-3.66.0.so is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libgdal.so.33.3.7.2 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libgovirt.so.2 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libgovirt.so.2.3.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpdiscovery.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpdiscovery.so.0.0.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpipp.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpipp.so.0.0.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpip.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpip.so.0.0.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpmud.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libhpmud.so.0.0.6 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libnetsnmp.so.40.1.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libopenfec.so.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libopenfec.so.1.4.2 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libopensc.so.8 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libopensc.so.8.0.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libpipewire-0.3.so.0.361.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libpipewire-0.3.so.0.372.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libroc.so.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libroc.so.0.2 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libSDL2_image-2.0.so.0.600.1 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libsmm-local.so.8 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/libsmm-local.so.8.0.0 is not owned by any package
file /lib64/onepin-opensc-pkcs11.so is not owned by any package
file /lib64/opensc-pkcs11.so is not owned by any package
file /lib64/p11-kit-trust.so is not owned by any package
file /lib64/pkcs11-spy.so is not owned by any package




Anything in "ls /usr/local/lib*"?


# ls /usr/local/lib*
/usr/local/lib:

/usr/local/lib64:
bpf  gems  perl5

/usr/local/libexec:




What does "ldd /bin/marble | grep libicu" show?


# ldd /bin/marble | grep libic
libicui18n.so.73 => /lib64/libicui18n.so.73 (0x7fdf3960)
libicuuc.so.73 => /lib64/libicuuc.so.73 (0x7fdf3920)
libicudata.so.73 => /lib64/libicudata.so.73 (0x7fdf2e00)
libicui18n.so.69 => not found
libicuuc.so.69 => not found
libicudata.so.69 => not found
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread Samuel Sieb


On 3/10/24 19:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

On 3/10/24 19:18, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 3/10/24 18:39, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

On 3/10/24 16:52, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 3/10/24 16:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

And this is interesting:

# dnf install libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64
Fedora 39 - x86_64   18 kB/s |  24 kB 
00:01
Fedora 39 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64    4.6 kB/s | 989  B 
00:00
Fedora 39 - x86_64 - Updates 33 kB/s |  23 kB 
00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free 5.7 kB/s | 3.6 kB 
00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free - Updates   6.6 kB/s | 3.9 kB 
00:00

Package libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64 is already installed.
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!


Yes, this is why it isn't working.  You have (I assume) a qt5 
package that is linked with a previous version and somehow wasn't 
updated when libicu was.


# rpm -qa qt* | grep -v fc39



I didn't mean a previous Fedora release.  I meant that something is 
linked against the previous version of libicu.


However, with some investigation, the 69 version was in F37 at the 
latest, so something is strange on your system and is from a previous 
release.  I'm surprised other things aren't breaking.


I am at a loss to figure out who is the culprit.  I will
just have to wait on the bug report


I doubt the bug report will come up with anything since this is 
something very specific to your system.  Do you have any packages from 
fc37?  Do you have any locked packages?  Have you installed any 
self-built packages?


Does "rpm -qf /lib64/*\.so* | grep owned" give you anything?
Mine only shows "p11-kit-trust.so".

Anything in "ls /usr/local/lib*"?

What does "ldd /bin/marble | grep libicu" show?
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread ToddAndMargo via users


On 3/10/24 20:16, Jerry James wrote:

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 8:40 PM ToddAndMargo via users
 wrote:

On 3/10/24 19:18, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 3/10/24 18:39, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

On 3/10/24 16:52, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 3/10/24 16:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

And this is interesting:

# dnf install libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64
Fedora 39 - x86_64   18 kB/s |  24 kB 00:01
Fedora 39 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_644.6 kB/s | 989  B 00:00
Fedora 39 - x86_64 - Updates 33 kB/s |  23 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free 5.7 kB/s | 3.6 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free - Updates   6.6 kB/s | 3.9 kB 00:00
Package libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64 is already installed.
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!


Yes, this is why it isn't working.  You have (I assume) a qt5 package
that is linked with a previous version and somehow wasn't updated
when libicu was.


# rpm -qa qt* | grep -v fc39



I didn't mean a previous Fedora release.  I meant that something is
linked against the previous version of libicu.

However, with some investigation, the 69 version was in F37 at the
latest, so something is strange on your system and is from a previous
release.  I'm surprised other things aren't breaking.


I am at a loss to figure out who is the culprit.  I will
just have to wait on the bug report


Does this show anything?

rpm -q --whatrequires 'libicui18n.so.69()(64bit)'

If not, does this show anything?

grep -Fl 'libicui18n.so.69' /usr/lib64/lib*


# rpm -q --whatrequires 'libicui18n.so.69()(64bit)'
no package requires libicui18n.so.69()(64bit)

# rpm -q --whatrequires libicui18n.so*
no package requires libicui18n.so*

# rpm -q --whatrequires libicui18n.so\*
no package requires libicui18n.so*

# grep -Fl 'libicui18n.so.69' /usr/lib64/lib* 2&>1 | grep -v "Is A 
directory"




--
~~
Computers are like air conditioners.
They malfunction when you open windows
~~
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread Jerry James

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 8:40 PM ToddAndMargo via users
 wrote:
> On 3/10/24 19:18, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > On 3/10/24 18:39, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> >> On 3/10/24 16:52, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> >>> On 3/10/24 16:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
>  And this is interesting:
> 
>  # dnf install libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64
>  Fedora 39 - x86_64   18 kB/s |  24 kB 00:01
>  Fedora 39 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_644.6 kB/s | 989  B 00:00
>  Fedora 39 - x86_64 - Updates 33 kB/s |  23 kB 00:00
>  RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free 5.7 kB/s | 3.6 kB 00:00
>  RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free - Updates   6.6 kB/s | 3.9 kB 00:00
>  Package libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64 is already installed.
>  Dependencies resolved.
>  Nothing to do.
>  Complete!
> >>>
> >>> Yes, this is why it isn't working.  You have (I assume) a qt5 package
> >>> that is linked with a previous version and somehow wasn't updated
> >>> when libicu was.
> >>
> >> # rpm -qa qt* | grep -v fc39
> >> 
> >
> > I didn't mean a previous Fedora release.  I meant that something is
> > linked against the previous version of libicu.
> >
> > However, with some investigation, the 69 version was in F37 at the
> > latest, so something is strange on your system and is from a previous
> > release.  I'm surprised other things aren't breaking.
>
> I am at a loss to figure out who is the culprit.  I will
> just have to wait on the bug report

Does this show anything?

rpm -q --whatrequires 'libicui18n.so.69()(64bit)'

If not, does this show anything?

grep -Fl 'libicui18n.so.69' /usr/lib64/lib*

-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread ToddAndMargo via users


On 3/10/24 19:18, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 3/10/24 18:39, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

On 3/10/24 16:52, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 3/10/24 16:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

And this is interesting:

# dnf install libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64
Fedora 39 - x86_64   18 kB/s |  24 kB 00:01
Fedora 39 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64    4.6 kB/s | 989  B 00:00
Fedora 39 - x86_64 - Updates 33 kB/s |  23 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free 5.7 kB/s | 3.6 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free - Updates   6.6 kB/s | 3.9 kB 00:00
Package libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64 is already installed.
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!


Yes, this is why it isn't working.  You have (I assume) a qt5 package 
that is linked with a previous version and somehow wasn't updated 
when libicu was.


# rpm -qa qt* | grep -v fc39



I didn't mean a previous Fedora release.  I meant that something is 
linked against the previous version of libicu.


However, with some investigation, the 69 version was in F37 at the 
latest, so something is strange on your system and is from a previous 
release.  I'm surprised other things aren't breaking.


I am at a loss to figure out who is the culprit.  I will
just have to wait on the bug report
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread Samuel Sieb


On 3/10/24 18:39, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

On 3/10/24 16:52, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 3/10/24 16:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

And this is interesting:

# dnf install libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64
Fedora 39 - x86_64   18 kB/s |  24 kB 00:01
Fedora 39 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64    4.6 kB/s | 989  B 00:00
Fedora 39 - x86_64 - Updates 33 kB/s |  23 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free 5.7 kB/s | 3.6 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free - Updates   6.6 kB/s | 3.9 kB 00:00
Package libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64 is already installed.
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!


Yes, this is why it isn't working.  You have (I assume) a qt5 package 
that is linked with a previous version and somehow wasn't updated when 
libicu was.


# rpm -qa qt* | grep -v fc39



I didn't mean a previous Fedora release.  I meant that something is 
linked against the previous version of libicu.


However, with some investigation, the 69 version was in F37 at the 
latest, so something is strange on your system and is from a previous 
release.  I'm surprised other things aren't breaking.

--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread ToddAndMargo via users


On 3/10/24 16:52, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 3/10/24 16:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

And this is interesting:

# dnf install libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64
Fedora 39 - x86_64   18 kB/s |  24 kB 00:01
Fedora 39 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64    4.6 kB/s | 989  B 00:00
Fedora 39 - x86_64 - Updates 33 kB/s |  23 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free 5.7 kB/s | 3.6 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free - Updates   6.6 kB/s | 3.9 kB 00:00
Package libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64 is already installed.
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!


Yes, this is why it isn't working.  You have (I assume) a qt5 package 
that is linked with a previous version and somehow wasn't updated when 
libicu was.


# rpm -qa qt*
qt-common-4.8.7-74.fc39.noarch
qt-4.8.7-74.fc39.x86_64
qt-x11-4.8.7-74.fc39.x86_64
qtkeychain-qt5-0.13.2-5.fc39.x86_64
qtlockedfile-qt5-2.4-39.20150629git5a07df5.fc39.x86_64
qtsingleapplication-qt5-2.6.1-46.fc39.x86_64
qt-settings-39.1-1.fc39.noarch
qt5-qttools-common-5.15.12-1.fc39.noarch
qt5-qtserialport-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtspeech-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtspeech-speechd-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtwebsockets-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qttranslations-5.15.12-1.fc39.noarch
qt5-qtwayland-5.15.12-2.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtx11extras-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtdeclarative-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qttools-libs-designer-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtlocation-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtwebchannel-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtsensors-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtsvg-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qttools-libs-designercomponents-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-designer-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtconnectivity-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtgraphicaleffects-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtquickcontrols2-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtmultimedia-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtscript-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qttools-libs-help-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtwebkit-5.212.0-0.80alpha4.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtquickcontrols-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtimageformats-5.15.12-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-srpm-macros-5.15.12-1.fc39.noarch
qt5-qtwebengine-5.15.16-1.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtbase-common-5.15.12-5.fc39.noarch
qt5-qtbase-5.15.12-5.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtbase-gui-5.15.12-5.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtbase-mysql-5.15.12-5.fc39.x86_64
qt5-qtbase-5.15.12-5.fc39.i686
qt6-qtbase-common-6.6.2-1.fc39.noarch
qt6-qtbase-6.6.2-1.fc39.x86_64
qt6-qttranslations-6.6.2-1.fc39.noarch
qt6-qtdeclarative-6.6.2-1.fc39.x86_64
qt6-qtwayland-6.6.2-1.fc39.x86_64
qt6-qtbase-gui-6.6.2-1.fc39.x86_64
qt6-qtsvg-6.6.2-1.fc39.x86_64
qt6-srpm-macros-6.6.2-1.fc39.noarch

# rpm -qa qt* | grep -v fc39


--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread Samuel Sieb


On 3/10/24 16:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

And this is interesting:

# dnf install libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64
Fedora 39 - x86_64   18 kB/s |  24 kB 00:01
Fedora 39 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64    4.6 kB/s | 989  B 00:00
Fedora 39 - x86_64 - Updates 33 kB/s |  23 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free 5.7 kB/s | 3.6 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free - Updates   6.6 kB/s | 3.9 kB 00:00
Package libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64 is already installed.
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!


Yes, this is why it isn't working.  You have (I assume) a qt5 package 
that is linked with a previous version and somehow wasn't updated when 
libicu was.

--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread ToddAndMargo via users


On 3/10/24 16:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

On 3/10/24 16:17, Samuel Sieb wrote:
You keep dropping the leading "l" from your searches.  The package is 
called "libicu".


ah poop!  Good catch.

# dnf whatprovides libicui18n\* --releasever=39
Last metadata expiration check: 0:40:30 ago on Sun 10 Mar 2024 03:54:32 
PM PDT.


...
libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64 : International Components for Unicode - 
libraries

Repo    : @System
Matched from:
Provide    : libicui18n.so.73()(64bit)


and others.


And this is interesting:

# dnf install libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64
Fedora 39 - x86_64   18 kB/s |  24 kB 00:01
Fedora 39 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64    4.6 kB/s | 989  B 00:00
Fedora 39 - x86_64 - Updates 33 kB/s |  23 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free 5.7 kB/s | 3.6 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free - Updates   6.6 kB/s | 3.9 kB 00:00
Package libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64 is already installed.
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!



And with the "l":
# find / -iname libicui18n\*
find: ‘/run/user/500/doc’: Permission denied
find: ‘/run/user/500/gvfs’: Permission denied
/usr/lib/libicui18n.so.73.2
/usr/lib/libicui18n.so.73
/usr/lib64/libicui18n.so
/usr/lib64/libicui18n.so.73.2
/usr/lib64/libicui18n.so.73
/home/tony/.dropbox-dist/dropbox-lnx.x86_64-84.4.170/libicui18n.so.42
/opt/libreoffice7.6/program/libicui18n.so.73
/opt/onlyoffice/desktopeditors/libicui18n.so.52


# ln -s /usr/lib/libicui18n.so.73 /usr/lib/libicui18n.so.69

#  ls -al /usr/lib/libicui18n.so.73
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 18 Jul 19  2023 /usr/lib/libicui18n.so.73 -> 
libicui18n.so.73.2


$ marble
marble: error while loading shared libraries: libicui18n.so.69: cannot 
open shared object file: No such file or directory




--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread ToddAndMargo via users


On 3/10/24 16:17, Samuel Sieb wrote:
You keep dropping the leading "l" from your searches.  The package is 
called "libicu".


ah poop!  Good catch.

# dnf whatprovides libicui18n\* --releasever=39
Last metadata expiration check: 0:40:30 ago on Sun 10 Mar 2024 03:54:32 
PM PDT.


...
libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64 : International Components for Unicode - libraries
Repo: @System
Matched from:
Provide: libicui18n.so.73()(64bit)


and others.


And this is interesting:

# dnf install libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64
Fedora 39 - x86_64   18 kB/s |  24 kB 
00:01
Fedora 39 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_644.6 kB/s | 989  B 
00:00
Fedora 39 - x86_64 - Updates 33 kB/s |  23 kB 
00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free 5.7 kB/s | 3.6 kB 
00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free - Updates   6.6 kB/s | 3.9 kB 
00:00

Package libicu-73.2-2.fc39.x86_64 is already installed.
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!


--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread Samuel Sieb


On 3/10/24 15:52, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

On 3/10/24 03:35, Barry Scott wrote:



On 10 Mar 2024, at 06:06, ToddAndMargo via users 
 wrote:


root@rn6:/home$ marble
marble: error while loading shared libraries:libicui18n.so 
.69: cannot open shared object file: No such 
file or directory


I just installed marble on f39 and its works. I have libicu18n.so 
.73 on my system.


# dnf whatprovides ibicui18n*
Last metadata expiration check: 14:26:03 ago on Sun 10 Mar 2024 12:19:03 
AM PST.
Error: No matches found. If searching for a file, try specifying the 
full path or using a wildcard prefix ("*/") at the beginning.


# find / -iname ibicui18n\*



You keep dropping the leading "l" from your searches.  The package is 
called "libicu".


It's not an issue with marble itself.  It's somewhere in a qt library. 
I just verified that it wasn't a direct dependency of marble and didn't 
want to dig any further.


When I installed marble, these are the dependencies:
=
 Package 
ArchitectureVersion

=
Installing:
 marble  x86_64 
 1:23.08.5-1.fc39

Installing dependencies:
 gpsd-libs   x86_64 
 1:3.25-7.fc39
 kf5-krunner x86_64 
 5.115.0-1.fc39
 kf5-kwaylandx86_64 
 5.110.0-1.fc39
 kf5-plasma  x86_64 
 5.115.0-1.fc39
 kf5-threadweaverx86_64 
 5.110.0-1.fc39
 marble-astrox86_64 
 1:23.08.5-1.fc39
 marble-common   noarch 
 1:23.08.5-1.fc39
 marble-widget-data  noarch 
 1:23.08.5-1.fc39
 marble-widget-qt5   x86_64 
 1:23.08.5-1.fc39
 shapelibx86_64 
 1.5.0-16.fc39

--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread ToddAndMargo via users


On 3/10/24 03:35, Barry Scott wrote:



On 10 Mar 2024, at 06:06, ToddAndMargo via users 
 wrote:


root@rn6:/home$ marble
marble: error while loading shared libraries:libicui18n.so 
.69: cannot open shared object file: No such 
file or directory


I just installed marble on f39 and its works. I have libicu18n.so 
.73 on my system.


# dnf whatprovides ibicui18n*
Last metadata expiration check: 14:26:03 ago on Sun 10 Mar 2024 12:19:03 
AM PST.
Error: No matches found. If searching for a file, try specifying the 
full path or using a wildcard prefix ("*/") at the beginning.


# find / -iname ibicui18n\*


Any idea where yours came from?




What are you running? Do you have an alias or another "marble" on your PATH?


No.

# which marble
/usr/bin/marble



Does /usr/bin/marble work?


That is how I got the error message
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread ToddAndMargo via users


On 3/10/24 01:53, Barry wrote:




On 10 Mar 2024, at 06:06, ToddAndMargo via users 
 wrote:

root@rn6:/home$ marble
marble: error while loading shared libraries: libicui18n.so.69: cannot open 
shared object file: No such file or directory


Looks like a packaging issue on the surface.

Suggest you report as a bug in fedora bugtracker so
the maintainer can look at it.

Barry


I did:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268746


--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread Barry Scott



> On 10 Mar 2024, at 06:06, ToddAndMargo via users 
>  wrote:
> 
> root@rn6:/home$ marble
> marble: error while loading shared libraries: libicui18n.so 
> .69: cannot open shared object file: No such file or 
> directory

I just installed marble on f39 and its works. I have libicu18n.so 
.73 on my system.

What are you running? Do you have an alias or another "marble" on your PATH?

Does /usr/bin/marble work?

Barry

--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-10 Thread Barry



> On 10 Mar 2024, at 06:06, ToddAndMargo via users 
>  wrote:
> 
> root@rn6:/home$ marble
> marble: error while loading shared libraries: libicui18n.so.69: cannot open 
> shared object file: No such file or directory

Looks like a packaging issue on the surface.

Suggest you report as a bug in fedora bugtracker so
the maintainer can look at it.

Barry
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

2024-03-09 Thread ToddAndMargo via users


# dnf install marble
Last metadata expiration check: 0:58:05 ago on Sat 09 Mar 2024 09:03:09 
PM PST.

Dependencies resolved.

 PackageArchitecture   VersionRepository 
   Size


Installing:
 marble x86_64 1:23.08.5-1.fc39   updates 
  188 k


Transaction Summary

Install  1 Package

Total download size: 188 k
Installed size: 585 k
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Downloading Packages:
marble-23.08.5-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm186 kB/s | 188 kB 
00:01


Total   114 kB/s | 188 kB 
00:01

Running transaction check
Transaction check succeeded.
Running transaction test
Transaction test succeeded.
Running transaction
  Preparing: 
1/1
  Installing   : marble-1:23.08.5-1.fc39.x86_64 
1/1
  Running scriptlet: marble-1:23.08.5-1.fc39.x86_64 
1/1
  Verifying: marble-1:23.08.5-1.fc39.x86_64 
1/1


Installed:
  marble-1:23.08.5-1.fc39.x86_64 



Complete!


root@rn6:/home$ marble
marble: error while loading shared libraries: libicui18n.so.69: cannot 
open shared object file: No such file or directory

--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Re: Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

Marble problem: libicui18n.so.69

22 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information