Xiphos doesn't start

angelsguitar · 2012-04-28 16:56:02

Hi everyone.

When I try to start Xiphos, I get the following error:

xiphos: error while loading shared libraries: libicui18n.so.48: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

In my system I have libicui18n.so and libicui18n.so.49 under /usr/lib/, but no libicui18n.so.48.

Am I missing a package, or is it a Xiphos bug?

skottish · 2012-04-28 17:38:01

libicui18n.so.49 belongs to icu. The version in extra was added 4/23 and xiphos in the repose is compiled against it. Is your system fully up to date?

angelsguitar · 2012-04-28 19:26:12

Yes, it is up to date. I just checked again.

Still can't start Xiphos.

skottish · 2012-04-28 20:50:16

What's the output of:

pacman -Qi xiphos | grep Version

Cosmin · 2012-04-28 22:32:09

you could use xiphos-svn from aur

skottish · 2012-04-28 22:56:24

Cosmin wrote:

you could use xiphos-svn from aur

That could work, but there's something wrong with angelsguitar's setup that should probably be dealt with first. If the system is current, then xiphos should be running fine.

mike_r · 2012-04-29 00:04:55

Sorry for a "me too", but me too. Xiphos is showing as 3.1.5-2 and icu is at 49.1.1-1. I tried three mirrors and none provided any additional updates. (http://mirror.rit.edu/archlinux, http://mirrors.lax1.thegcloud.com/arch, http://mirrors.us.kernel.org/archlinux, FWIW) I don't see a call to libicui in the xiphos binary, so maybe there is a dependency chain thing going on, where something else needs to be updated?

ewaller · 2012-04-29 00:29:07

skottish wrote:

If the system is current, then xiphos should be running fine.

Try running sudo pacman -Syu

mike_r · 2012-04-29 00:36:02

Did so, three times with the above named mirrors. Doing a brute find/grep on all .so's in /usr/lib, I find that libsword.so (which is definitely needed by xiphos) calls libicui18n.so.48. Maybe the sword package (1.6.2-8) needs a refresh?

skottish · 2012-04-29 00:45:56

mike_r wrote:

Did so, three times with the above named mirrors. Doing a brute find/grep on all .so's in /usr/lib, I find that libsword.so (which is definitely needed by xiphos) calls libicui18n.so.48. Maybe the sword package (1.6.2-8) needs a refresh?

sword is at 1.6.2-7 in the repos. Typo?

** EDIT **

There's something weird going on here as Xiphos works fine in the Arch official repos, at least for x86_64. While I'm familiar with it, I don't normally use this software. So, my installation was fresh today.

Last edited by skottish (2012-04-29 00:49:19)

angelsguitar · 2012-04-29 00:49:08

skottish wrote:

Cosmin wrote:
you could use xiphos-svn from aur
That could work, but there's something wrong with angelsguitar's setup that should probably be dealt with first. If the system is current, then xiphos should be running fine.

My system is up to date. I've ran sudo pacman -Syu three times today. Still Xiphos doesn't start.

Here's the output of pacman -Qi xiphos | grep Version:

Version        : 3.1.5-2

Last edited by angelsguitar (2012-04-29 00:50:54)

ewaller · 2012-04-29 00:53:48

Weird. How about trying pacman -Syyu That will force the system to update package databases, even should they seem fresh. YMMV

skottish · 2012-04-29 00:59:12

This is what libsword requires that's installed on my computer right now:

~ > readelf -d /usr/lib/libsword.so | grep NEEDED
 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED)             Shared library: [libz.so.1]
 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED)             Shared library: [libcurl.so.4]
 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED)             Shared library: [libpthread.so.0]
 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED)             Shared library: [libicui18n.so.49]
 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED)             Shared library: [libicuuc.so.49]
 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED)             Shared library: [libstdc++.so.6]
 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED)             Shared library: [libgcc_s.so.1]
 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED)             Shared library: [libc.so.6]

sword seems like it has to be the problem; everything else ends in a broken system:

~ > pacman -Qi sword | grep Version
Version : 1.6.2-7

Last edited by skottish (2012-04-29 00:59:46)

angelsguitar · 2012-04-29 01:00:21

ewaller wrote:

Weird. How about trying pacman -Syyu That will force the system to update package databases, even should they seem fresh. YMMV

Ok, I did that, and no package was updated, but got the following message:

warning: sword: local (1.6.2-8) is newer than community (1.6.2-7)
 there is nothing to do

Seems that I have installed sword from community, but the local version is more up to date.

How do I push the version from local?

skottish · 2012-04-29 01:06:17

angelsguitar wrote:

ewaller wrote:
Weird. How about trying pacman -Syyu That will force the system to update package databases, even should they seem fresh. YMMV
Ok, I did that, and no package was updated, but got the following message:
warning: sword: local (1.6.2-8) is newer than community (1.6.2-7)
 there is nothing to do
Seems that I have installed sword from community, but the local version is more up to date.
How do I push the version from local?

Man, I felt like that there had to be another repo involved. Do you have a local or custom repo listed somewhere towards the top of the repo listing in /etc/pacman.conf?

Last edited by skottish (2012-04-29 01:07:11)

mike_r · 2012-04-29 01:07:00

Okay, I tried pacman -Syyu and it came back with "warning: sword: local (1.6.2-8) is newer than community (1.6.2-7)", and then told me there was nothing to do. I have no idea how I got a 1.6.2-8 (no it wasn't a typo in my earlier post - I double-checked).

I then typed "pacman -S sword" and it informed me it was downgrading the sword package. I then ran xiphos immediately after this and now everything works. The wires seem to have gotten crossed somewhere along the way, but the application of a large mallet seems to have fixed things up.

To the OP (angelsguitar), try the above when you get the chance and see if it works for you.

skottish · 2012-04-29 01:07:38

mike_r wrote:

Okay, I tried pacman -Syyu and it came back with "warning: sword: local (1.6.2-8) is newer than community (1.6.2-7)", and then told me there was nothing to do. I have no idea how I got a 1.6.2-8 (no it wasn't a typo in my earlier post - I double-checked).
I then typed "pacman -S sword" and it informed me it was downgrading the sword package. I then ran xiphos immediately after this and now everything works. The wires seem to have gotten crossed somewhere along the way, but the application of a large mallet seems to have fixed things up.
To the OP (angelsguitar), try the above when you get the chance and see if it works for you.

Please read the post above yours.

angelsguitar · 2012-04-29 01:09:18

The only repos I have are core, extra, community, multilib and archlinuxfr (pacman's repo). I have no custom or local repos besides those.

mike_r · 2012-04-29 01:10:31

We're all typing at the same time :-)

My only repos are core, community, extra, multilib, and repo-ck. Nothing overly unusual except for graysky's ck repo.

skottish · 2012-04-29 01:11:40

angelsguitar wrote:

The only repos I have are core, extra, community, multilib and archlinuxfr (pacman's repo). I have no custom or local repos besides those.

archlinuxfr is not an official mirror. If it's on top of the list (before community in this sake), expect things to break. Comment it out, run pacman -Syyu and consider replacing everything that's "newer". You'll need to do this manually to get rid of the incompatible packages.

******

archlinuxfr is advised often in these forums because it seems convenient. For instance, Arch dropped awesomewm for a while because it's cairo's xcb backend was considered unstable by its developers; awesomewm was provided there. For many, it was easier to turn on archlinuxfr than to deal with it. It's a private repo that can't be trusted to run against an official repo. I've seen this happen a number of times over the years. It's often best to learn to create your own build systems than to rely on third party repos.

Last edited by skottish (2012-04-29 01:32:22)

angelsguitar · 2012-04-29 01:31:53

Well, I tried disabling archlinuxfr and running pacman -Syyu, but didn't work.

However, I got Xiphos to run by downgrading sword from version 1.6.2-8 (local version) to 1.6.2-7 (community version). I used yaourt to do the downgrade; after that Xiphos opened without problems.

Seems that Xiphos is configured to run with the community version of sword, which is older.

skottish · 2012-04-29 01:36:31

angelsguitar wrote:

Well, I tried disabling archlinuxfr and running pacman -Syyu, but didn't work.
However, I got Xiphos to run by downgrading sword from version 1.6.2-8 (local version) to 1.6.2-7 (community version). I used yaourt to do the downgrade; after that Xiphos opened without problems.
Seems that Xiphos is configured to run with the community version of sword, which is older.

It's not going to work by default. You have to manually replace any package that's a problem. I wanted you to run -Syyu to look for other "newer" packages. Unfortunately, there's no way to see incompatible packages that have the same version number as what you have installed without some investigating. If the only affected package was sword, then you're good now.

I have an edited comment above your post that may be useful to read. It doesn't only apply to archlinuxfr, but any third party repo.

*** edited like ten times for spelling ***

Last edited by skottish (2012-04-29 01:43:48)

skottish · 2012-04-29 02:41:21

Normally bumping one's own post is against the rules, but I feel that there's something even more interesting going on.

While I stand behind my singling out archlinuxfr as a simple, but obvious example, I doubt that the questionable version of sword came from there. Do any of you that are having this problem remember a time when you felt a need to install sword from somewhere other than a normal update?

Last edited by skottish (2012-04-29 02:41:37)

mike_r · 2012-04-29 05:24:34

No - that's why I'm flummoxed. I tend to be very conservative and stick to the main repos. Even things I install from AUR are only because they are not in the main repos, not because I wanted to play around with some newer version than that in the repos.

For yucks, I looked at the "View Changes" on the sword package in the community repo. On 3/28, there was a commit from rev 7 to rev 8 to "Rebuild to fix FS#29131". So the question is "what happened to sword-1.6.2-8?" It did exist, but no longer seems to. Did it get reverted?

Gumper · 2012-04-29 12:54:58

I also had the message that my version of sword (1.6.2-8) was newer than what was available. I thought that it was strange as I installed everything from the main repos and not through AUR.

I ended up running "pacman -Rs xiphos" and reinstalling. I'm now using 1.6.2-7 and Xiphos starts ok for me but it gives me the following message:

No matching local found for 'C'.
Book names and menus may not be translated.

Not sure what is going on there.

Arch Linux

#1 2012-04-28 16:56:02

Xiphos doesn't start

#2 2012-04-28 17:38:01

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#3 2012-04-28 19:26:12

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#4 2012-04-28 20:50:16

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#5 2012-04-28 22:32:09

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#6 2012-04-28 22:56:24

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#7 2012-04-29 00:04:55

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#8 2012-04-29 00:29:07

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#9 2012-04-29 00:36:02

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#10 2012-04-29 00:45:56

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#11 2012-04-29 00:49:08

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#12 2012-04-29 00:53:48

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#13 2012-04-29 00:59:12

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#14 2012-04-29 01:00:21

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#15 2012-04-29 01:06:17

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#16 2012-04-29 01:07:00

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#17 2012-04-29 01:07:38

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#18 2012-04-29 01:09:18

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#19 2012-04-29 01:10:31

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#20 2012-04-29 01:11:40

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#21 2012-04-29 01:31:53

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#22 2012-04-29 01:36:31

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#23 2012-04-29 02:41:21

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#24 2012-04-29 05:24:34

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

#25 2012-04-29 12:54:58

Re: Xiphos doesn't start

Board footer