search

commetchat / commet

Your space to connect
https://commet.chat
GNU Affero General Public License v3.0
165 stars 11 forks source link

Error while loading shared libraries: libmpv.so.1 on boot #103

Closed dannymate closed 3 months ago

dannymate commented 1 year ago

Describe the bug When trying to load the linux version of the v0.1.0 commet release I get: /var/home/dannymate/Downloads/commet-linux-x64/bundle/commet: error while loading shared libraries: libmpv.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory and commet doesn't boot.

To Reproduce Steps to reproduce the behavior:

  1. Download the commet-linux.tar.gz from release v0.1.0
  2. Try the run the executable or run it in console
  3. See error

Expected behavior Commet should run.

Additional context Fedora Silverblue 38, Gnome 44.5, Wayland

Airyzz commented 1 year ago

Hey! You may need to install MPV

sudo apt-get install -y mpv

dannymate commented 1 year ago

Fedora Silverblue being immutable, people try to avoid layering packages on. Instead, I tried in a toolbox.

Installed mpv, mpv-devel, mpv-libs and in all cases I still get the same issue.

Airyzz commented 1 year ago

I see, im not too familiar with this distro unfortunately... I will try to reproduce in a vm and see what I can do

dannymate commented 1 year ago

A toolbox creates a normal Fedora install in a container that has access to your Fedora Silverblue home directory. You're running Fedora on top of your immutable distro. It's useful for dev work to install packages for specific projects without cluttering your OS. And can also be used to install graphical apps. I use a toolbox for scrcpy for example.

In Fedora Silverblue the install options are in order of recommendation: Flatpak > AppImage > Toolbox > Package Layering (What you would consider apt-get install).

Flatpak and AppImages are both All-in-one container formats. And would be the ideal solution.

Airyzz commented 1 year ago

I agree, we are planning to distribute with Flatpak and AppImage soon. As it seems Silverblue is not a 'typical' distro, would you consider it fair to say that getting commet to run as a plain executable is not "important" in this scenario?

dannymate commented 1 year ago

I recommend making sure it works in vanilla Fedora using a VM or what have you first before checking this one off. It should work in a toolbox and the fact it doesn't suggests that it may be a wider Fedora bug.

However, yes I would use a Flatpak every day of the week. I was just hoping to give this a shot and see what it was like, maybe give a run through the change client October thing.

Airyzz commented 1 year ago

Sounds good, will continue looking in to it on vanilla fedora.

In the mean time, we do host a web version over on https://app.commet.chat if you wanted to jump in to it now

dannymate commented 1 year ago

I did know but I tend to use the desktop clients. I'll give it a shot now.

Obviously it takes great inspiration from a well known chat service :P. And clearly early in development. Even so it looks very nice and feel good to use. I would love to be able to use a custom theme. I use the Catppuccin Frappe theme from here.

I have some rooms that aren't in spaces and it's a bit of a pain to navigate to those. As I have to press home before I get a list of rooms.

Some icons don't show in the side panel. My Space for my discord bridge (it doesn't have a set icon but should show 'D'): image

The only other feature I want is search.

Otherwise I'll let you get on with UI/UX design. It's too early to really give much feedback I imagine.

I'm excited for it, looks like it could be perfect for me and a couple others I know. Another project I'm interested in is Commune, a Matrix server to the Fediverse and the wider web. It's more a server than a client though.

Airyzz commented 1 year ago

Totally agree with those points! Will open some new issues for them!

As for this issue, it's seeming like it may need to be fixed by one of our upstream dependencies. I'll open an issue there and see what can be done.

On vanilla fedora, even with libmpv installed, it was unable to find the library unfortunately

dannymate commented 1 year ago

I'll leave this issue open then. Hopefully it's an easy fix.

I'll also try to give more feedback as development progresses. Probably when a Flatpak gets released. I know someone who is very particular so he'll be useful for weeding out very small things nobody else would notice.

Airyzz commented 1 year ago

Sounds good to me!

Airyzz commented 1 year ago

After talking to media_kit maintainers, they pointed out to me that the libraries are statically linked and need to be built for that specific platform - seems obvious now!

Moving forward we will be publishing releases as .deb, flatpak and .rpm. which should cover all our bases :D

dannymate commented 1 year ago

That sounds like a good assortment to me. Us Linux users can be avaricious with our package formats. Be careful not to overload yourself with building packages in the future. :)

I leave it to you to close the issue when it's fixed.

xyhhx commented 1 year ago

Can confirm this occurs on normal Fedora as well.

After talking to media_kit maintainers, they pointed out to me that the libraries are statically linked and need to be built for that specific platform - seems obvious now!

@Airyzz maybe I can submit a PR to get this done. I'd like to try commet out!

Airyzz commented 1 year ago

I've been working on it today already, to get a flatpak build done this weekend. I think we will end up not releasing .rpm packages because we cant run github workers on Fedora.

xyhhx commented 1 year ago

Very cool!

Airyzz commented 1 year ago

Flatpak is available under v0.1.1 release now

Glandos commented 5 months ago

This is still happening in Debian, because it's libmpv.so.2 in unstable and testing:

root in ~ ❯ ll /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmpv*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   15  1 mai   11:10 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmpv.so.2 -> libmpv.so.2.3.0
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2,7M  1 mai   11:10 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmpv.so.2.3.0
Airyzz commented 5 months ago

This is still happening in Debian, because it's libmpv.so.2 in unstable and testing:

root in ~ ❯ ll /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmpv*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   15  1 mai   11:10 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmpv.so.2 -> libmpv.so.2.3.0
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2,7M  1 mai   11:10 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmpv.so.2.3.0

Is this using the released .deb package?

Glandos commented 5 months ago

Yes, the package installed fine, it doesn't complain about mismatched dependency in libmpv. Indeed, the .deb has no dependencies:

❯ dpkg-deb -I ./commet-linux-x64.deb 
 new Debian package, version 2.0.
 size 27645636 bytes: control archive=215 bytes.
     146 bytes,     8 lines      control
 Package: commet
 Version: 0.2.0
 Architecture: all
 Essential: no
 Priority: optional
 Depends: 
 Maintainer: Airyz
 Description: Your space to connect!
Airyzz commented 5 months ago

to clarify, you are getting libmpv.so.2 from unstable/testing versions of mpv?

I probably need to tweak the .deb to actually consider dependencies properly, as I don't think this is correct.

I'm not sure if theres much that can be done without releasing a seperate build that is linked with this version, and I think probably in the future we'll be pushing flatpak as the recommended version for linux to avoid these types of issues - open to suggestions though!

Glandos commented 5 months ago 
root in ~ ❯ dpkg -S /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmpv.so.2.3.0
libmpv2:amd64: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmpv.so.2.3.0

This means that yes, libmpv comes from libmpv2, which is built by source package mpv. As you can see in https://packages.debian.org/source/bullseye/mpv and https://packages.debian.org/source/bookworm/mpv libmpv1 was distributed in old stable (aka bullseye) and libmpv2 is in current stable (aka bookworm). So it doesn't make sense to still use libmpv.so.1 anymore, at least for Debian.

And yes, to be honest, this is to avoid the Flatpak package: it's a pain to track every software installed by AppImage/Flatpak/snap, and a tougher pain to update them. I'm using Debian because of "One tool to manage every software" :) Note that I fully understand the packager point of view: multiple Linux distros with random patches, sometimes very intrusive. Flatpak is a very tempting solution.

Airyzz commented 5 months ago

I see, if libmpv.so.2 is latest stable version then I agree it makes the most sense to be using this version going forward. Thanks for the info! I'll look in to changing this :)

Airyzz commented 5 months ago

I've decided we'll be releasing two .deb files for now, one using libmpv1 and one with libmpv2. Worth noting in the next release they will be named as commet-ubuntu-22.04-x64.deb and commet-ubuntu-24.04-x64.deb as the name is being taken from the github runner that it's built on.