Bug 891781 - gnumeric-1.12.0-1.fc17 fails to start - /lib/libspreadsheet-1.12.0.so: undefined symbol: gsf_timestamp_to_value
Summary: gnumeric-1.12.0-1.fc17 fails to start - /lib/libspreadsheet-1.12.0.so: undefi...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gnumeric
Version: 17
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-01-04 00:22 UTC by Andriy
Modified: 2013-08-01 17:07 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-08-01 17:07:12 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Andriy 2013-01-04 00:22:01 UTC
gnumeric fails to start after update from gnumeric-1.11 and goffice-0.9 to gnumeric-1.12.0-1.fc17.i686 and goffice-0.10.0-1.fc17.i686

gnumeric: symbol lookup error: /lib/libspreadsheet-1.12.0.so: undefined symbol: gsf_timestamp_to_value

libgsf has to be also updated to solve this problem.

To simplify update of gnumeric it might be necessary to add such dependence from libgsf.

Comment 1 Julian Sikorski 2013-01-04 09:55:49 UTC
Hmm, that's a bit odd. Which libgsf do you have installed? The same version is available for all the branches (1.14.24), and on F-18 gnumeric starts fine.
Having said that, I think it is up to gnumeric/libgsf upstream to manage their sonames properly.

Comment 2 Andriy 2013-01-04 12:20:48 UTC
I had libgsf-1.14.21-3.fc17 and gnumeric failed to start. After update to 1.14.24-1.fc17 gnumeric starts again.

Comment 3 Julian Sikorski 2013-01-04 14:12:40 UTC
Hmm, I was assuming this sort of dependencies are handled automatically by rpm. In any case, it's great that it works for you as well.

Comment 4 Andriy 2013-01-04 17:47:38 UTC
Dear Julian, this is a reason why I has opened this bug. 

gnumeric rpm does not handle automatically the dependency.

The F-17 users will have to find a solution by their own. 

I do not know if it is a problem for F-18 or not, but in F-17 the standard way 

# yum update gnumeric

will break the functionality of gnumeric (for people as me, who do not update all packages as soon as new updates are appearing).

Please, do not close this bug. Or, if you think it is not important, then change the status to CLOSED WONTFIX.

Comment 5 Julian Sikorski 2013-01-04 17:50:04 UTC
I'll ask on the list on how this should be handled properly.
You are right, that
# yum update gnumeric
will break your install. OTOH,
# yum update
will not, since libgsf will get updated too. May I ask why you decided to cherry-pick updates? It might help in bringing the case to the list.

Comment 6 Andriy 2013-01-04 18:37:34 UTC
I am new Fedora fan (just few months). I like stability of F-17 very much. I used several years openSUSE before. The reasons of my moving to Fedora were stability of some important for me packages, for instance, chromium-browser. In spite of chromium is not included into regular Fedora distribution, I found that chromium from fedorapeople.org was/is much better for me as in stable openSUSE.
During last months I experienced only once that after package update it failed to start (it was firefox). I did not keep all old packages in cache and it was difficult to me to find older functioning package in internet. May be in the future (F-18 stable) I will do "yum update" (with keepcache=1). Sorry, for the long, not directly connected to the bug, comment.

Comment 7 Andrej Kvasnica 2013-01-07 17:22:18 UTC
yum update libgsf
solved this problem

removed: libgsf-1.14.21-3.fc17.x86_64
installed: libgsf-1.14.24-1.fc17.x86_64

gnumeric 1:gnumeric-1.12.0-1.fc17.x86_64 works now fine

I did cherrypick updates too, but the rpm dependency mechanism should handle this.

Comment 8 Julian Sikorski 2013-01-07 17:42:21 UTC
It seems that it's libgsf which it at fault here for not versioning its symbols. Caolan, could you provide some insight?

Comment 9 Caolan McNamara 2013-01-08 10:58:46 UTC
yeah, it must be the case that there wasn't versioning of the additional symbols so the latest libgsf wasn't forced in during the update. Only affects selective update attempts. Workaround is do just "yum update". I guess gnumeric could add an additional libgsf >= foo if necessary, otherwise just leave it and let people do complete updates rather than partial.

Comment 10 Andriy 2013-01-09 12:14:16 UTC
To force people to do a complete system update, just to have a working gnumeric?!
I do not think, this is a good option for many users. For example, VMware Player does not always support latest kernels. I believe, such users will prefer to keep an old kernel and working virtual machine, rather as to have gnumeric. And, if such packaging policy will be accepted by many other package maintainers, they possibly will switch to an other more conservative linux distribution.

Comment 11 Julian Sikorski 2013-01-09 19:36:30 UTC
Well, a complete update might be too much, but trying to update libgsf if the error you see is gsf_timestamp_to_value should be quite high on the things to try list.
I can introduce a hard-coded dependency, sure, but these are quite likely introduce a false sense of security. It is nigh impossible to test if a package works with an arbitrary versions of packages, especially that you cannot download them anymore once they get superseded.

Comment 12 Andreas J Guelzow 2013-01-10 17:07:39 UTC
(In reply to comment #9)
> I
> guess gnumeric could add an additional libgsf >= foo if necessary, otherwise
> just leave it and let people do complete updates rather than partial.

Gnumeric already has (in configure.in):
	libgsf-1		>= 1.14.24

So this seems to me to be more of a pacakging issue, ie. this information was not correctly incorporated in to the created rpm.

Comment 13 Fedora End Of Life 2013-07-04 05:51:26 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 17 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 17. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '17'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 17's end of life.

Bug Reporter:  Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 17 is end of life. If you 
would still like  to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it 
against a later version  of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 
'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 17's end of life.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 14 Fedora End Of Life 2013-08-01 17:07:18 UTC
Fedora 17 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2013-07-30. Fedora 17 is 
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further 
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of 
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.