Add a bunsen-meta-base metapackage?

hhh · 2024-05-09 18:21:42

johnraff wrote:

What are the xorg-server packages you refer to?

xserver-xorg, sorry!

johnraff · 2024-05-10 02:36:48

OK, xserver-xorg is definitely in the base list, but that's for an X11-based system and the list will need re-thinking for a Wayland base.

It would be nice IMO not to have to rely on xwayland, at least for the base install - leaving it as a user option only if they need something that doesn't work on pure Wayland, but whether a totally X-free BL base is possible or not is something that we have to work on...
https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic.php?id=8843

hhh · 2024-05-10 02:40:31

@johnraff, I'm not a fan of snap or flatpak, although they have their good points, but if I want a sandboxed and/or more current app version and it has an AppImage, I'm all about it (currently using the libreoffice appimage). I just discovered that without libfuse2 (or libfuse2t64 in trixie, they renamed it for some reason) AppImage packages won't launch...

https://itsfoss.com/cant-run-appimage-ubuntu/

https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/libfuse2

https://packages.debian.org/trixie/libfuse2t64

I think it's small enough to be included, if it's not already brought in by another package. It's a dependency that's not very well documented, so maybe worth adding by default?

johnraff · 2024-05-10 03:09:44

^Makes sense. Let's put it in. That's the kind of package people might otherwise have to waste time researching...

---
The t64 renaming is the 64bit time transition that Trixie is now going through. It's not a good time to do a fresh install of Debian Testing.

hhh · 2024-05-10 03:23:12

johnraff wrote:

It's not a good time to do a fresh install of Debian Testing.

Noted, I'll hold off on that virtual sid/Wayland install for a couple of months!

johnraff · 2024-05-10 03:50:48

...or a couple of weeks anyway.

johnraff · 2024-05-10 04:21:24

hhh wrote:

if I want a sandboxed and/or more current app version and it has an AppImage, I'm all about it (currently using the libreoffice appimage). I just discovered that without libfuse2 (or libfuse2t64 in trixie, they renamed it for some reason) AppImage packages won't launch...

Just one point - BL switched from fuse to fuse3 at Beryllium and there is a libfuse3-3 library. On my system I have both that and libfuse2 for whatever reason. Does libreoffice appimage require libfuse2 or will libfuse3-3 work too?

Last edited by johnraff (2024-05-10 04:46:01)

hhh · 2024-05-10 16:16:53

^ This Ubuntu install is getting a little long in the tooth, having stared with Lunar and upgraded twice to current Noble, but libfuse3-3 library is installed and removing libfuse2t64 makes the appimage not launch from my launcher menu (fuzzel). Here's the terminal output...

./LibreOffice.AppImage
dlopen(): error loading libfuse.so.2

AppImages require FUSE to run. 
You might still be able to extract the contents of this AppImage 
if you run it with the --appimage-extract option. 
See https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/wiki/FUSE 
for more information

Here are a couple of AppImage GitHub issues, independence from fuse is in the works...

https://github.com/AppImageCommunity/li … issues/168

https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/issues/877

And here's the GitHub wiki link from the terminal output...

https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/wiki/FUSE

johnraff · 2024-05-11 03:13:14

^Yes it seems appimage still requires libfuse2, not libfuse3.

appimage wiki wrote:

AppImages require FUSE version 2 to run.

It's a pity because the rest of the infrastructure has moved on to fuse3, but at least the two libraries can co-exist on the same system (the apps fuse and fuse3 can not though).

Also here: https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit … 1061040129

Trouble is to be expected. This means that all existing AppImages will not run on Ubuntu unless the user manually installs libfuse2 from a non-default official repository.

Anyway, enough discussion - agreed this looks like a case where we should provide the missing piece for regular users, even if many of them will never need it. libfuse2 isn't that big.

johnraff · 2024-05-11 03:21:20

@hhh libfuse2 is a dependency of grub-common, so many (most?) systems will have it anyway. Does the system where you noticed the appimage issue have grub-common installed? Is this another Wayland change?

hhh · 2024-05-11 03:28:11

^ That's it, it's currently Ubuntu specific...

https://packages.ubuntu.com/noble/grub-common

https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/grub-common

https://packages.debian.org/trixie/grub-common

Not necessary in Debian at this point, but will be for trixie. Nice debugging!

johnraff · 2024-05-11 05:10:09

OK anyway it will do no harm at all to have libfuse2 in at least the "base" list.
I've added libfuse2 to the "base" package list on the netinstall script. Bunsen-meta-all will follow with the next package upgrade.

Could add it to the "lite" and "full" lists for that matter.

Last edited by johnraff (2024-05-11 05:16:39)

unklar · 2024-05-11 07:45:32

I have both libraries on this system. But I can't say since when.

inxi -S
System:
  Host: francescoPC Kernel: 6.1.0-21-amd64 arch: x86_64 bits: 64
    Desktop: Openbox v: 3.6.1 Distro: BunsenLabs GNU/Linux 12 (Boron)

apt policy  libfuse3-3 libfuse2
libfuse3-3:
  Installiert:           3.14.0-4
  Installationskandidat: 3.14.0-4
  Versionstabelle:
 *** 3.14.0-4 500
        500 https://deb.debian.org/debian bookworm/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
libfuse2:
  Installiert:           2.9.9-6+b1
  Installationskandidat: 2.9.9-6+b1
  Versionstabelle:
 *** 2.9.9-6+b1 500
        500 https://deb.debian.org/debian bookworm/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

#41 2024-05-09 18:21:42

Re: Add a bunsen-meta-base metapackage?

#42 2024-05-10 02:36:48

Re: Add a bunsen-meta-base metapackage?

#43 2024-05-10 02:40:31

Re: Add a bunsen-meta-base metapackage?

#44 2024-05-10 03:09:44

Re: Add a bunsen-meta-base metapackage?

#45 2024-05-10 03:23:12

Re: Add a bunsen-meta-base metapackage?

#46 2024-05-10 03:50:48

Re: Add a bunsen-meta-base metapackage?

#47 2024-05-10 04:21:24

Re: Add a bunsen-meta-base metapackage?

#48 2024-05-10 16:16:53

Re: Add a bunsen-meta-base metapackage?

#49 2024-05-11 03:13:14

Re: Add a bunsen-meta-base metapackage?

#50 2024-05-11 03:21:20

Re: Add a bunsen-meta-base metapackage?

#51 2024-05-11 03:28:11

Re: Add a bunsen-meta-base metapackage?

#52 2024-05-11 05:10:09

Re: Add a bunsen-meta-base metapackage?

#53 2024-05-11 07:45:32

Re: Add a bunsen-meta-base metapackage?

Board footer