(Note: chrome, not chromium). I just updated this morning and get this:

$ ldd /opt/google/chrome/chrome
/opt/google/chrome/chrome: /lib/libz.so.1: no version information available (required by /opt/google/chrome/chrome)
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xf77fb000)
libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x00279000)
libXrender.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXrender.so.1 (0x0090a000)
libXss.so.1 => not found
libXext.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x00938000)
librt.so.1 => /lib/librt.so.1 (0x00a24000)
libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 (0x05ae8000)
libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 (0x056ff000)
libatk-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libatk-1.0.so.0 (0x00ca5000)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 (0x00101000)
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 (0x009be000)
libpango-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpango-1.0.so.0 (0x00134000)
libcairo.so.2 => /usr/lib/libcairo.so.2 (0x0567d000)
libgobject-2.0.so.0 => /lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 (0x00b74000)
libgmodule-2.0.so.0 => /lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 (0x004f0000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x0089b000)
libgthread-2.0.so.0 => /lib/libgthread-2.0.so.0 (0x00640000)
libglib-2.0.so.0 => /lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0x00a2f000)
libnss3.so.1d => not found
libnssutil3.so.1d => not found
libsmime3.so.1d => not found
libplds4.so.0d => not found
libplc4.so.0d => not found
libnspr4.so.0d => not found
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x008ce000)
libz.so.1 => /lib/libz.so.1 (0x00b5f000)
libgconf-2.so.4 => /usr/lib/libgconf-2.so.4 (0xf778d000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x008a2000)
libfontconfig.so.1 => /usr/lib/libfontconfig.so.1 (0x00dc4000)
libfreetype.so.6 => /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6 (0x001b5000)
libjpeg.so.62 => /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.62 (0x058d6000)
libpng12.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpng12.so.0 (0x0024f000)
libasound.so.2 => /lib/libasound.so.2 (0x003b3000)
libbz2.so.1.0 => not found
libexpat.so.1 => /lib/libexpat.so.1 (0x00d9a000)
libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (0xf76a5000)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0xf7687000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x00724000)
libxcb.so.1 => /usr/lib/libxcb.so.1 (0x008ea000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x00702000)
libXfixes.so.3 => /usr/lib/libXfixes.so.3 (0x009cd000)
libgio-2.0.so.0 => /lib/libgio-2.0.so.0 (0x00ce7000)
libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 (0x0017f000)
libXinerama.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXinerama.so.1 (0x009d9000)
libXi.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXi.so.6 (0x00923000)
libXrandr.so.2 => /usr/lib/libXrandr.so.2 (0x009ea000)
libXcursor.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXcursor.so.1 (0x009de000)
libXcomposite.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXcomposite.so.1 (0x00933000)
libXdamage.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXdamage.so.1 (0x009d4000)
libpixman-1.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpixman-1.so.0 (0x004f6000)
libORBit-2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libORBit-2.so.0 (0xf7627000)
libdbus-1.so.3 => /lib/libdbus-1.so.3 (0x058fb000)
libXau.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXau.so.6 (0x00b1a000)
libresolv.so.2 => /lib/libresolv.so.2 (0x00ccc000)
libselinux.so.1 => /lib/libselinux.so.1 (0x009f4000)
libcap-ng.so.0 => /lib/libcap-ng.so.0 (0x06d55000)

i.e. lots of "not found"s which weren't there before. This is 32-bit
Chrome on F12 64-bit and had been working up till now. Note that the
alledgedly missing libraries are present, e.g.:

$ ls -l /opt/google/chrome/libnspr4.so.0d
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 2010-02-13 12:53 /opt/google/chrome/libnspr4.so.0d -> /lib/libnspr4.so
[poc@bree:~] ls -l /lib/libnspr4.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 240476 2009-10-13 15:35 /lib/libnspr4.so
[poc@bree:~] file /lib/libnspr4.so
/lib/libnspr4.so: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped

Prefixing a LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/google/chrome doesn't make any
difference. Neither does running ldconfig, nor rebooting.

Any ideas?

poc

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines

On 02/13/2010 01:03 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> (Note: chrome, not chromium). I just updated this morning and get this:
>
>
>
> i.e. lots of "not found"s which weren't there before. This is 32-bit
> Chrome on F12 64-bit and had been working up till now. Note that the

For what its worth I'm using the 64bit version with no problem at all.

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Mail Llists [via Fedora Users]
<ml-node+205715-924583685@n3.nabble.com> wrote:
> On 02/13/2010 01:03 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> (Note: chrome, not chromium). I just updated this morning and get this:
>>
>>
>>
>> i.e. lots of "not found"s which weren't there before. This is 32-bit
>> Chrome on F12 64-bit and had been working up till now. Note that the
>
> * For what its worth I'm using the 64bit version with no problem at all.

Likewise I am using 32 bit with no problems - I set up the google repo
and installed as google-chrome-beta from the repo and it set up an
appropriate repo file to update itself when necessary - the OP did not
say how he installed or updated, nor whether he is using a beta or
devel version?

--
mike

--
View this message in context: http://n3.nabble.com/Latest-google-chrome-won-t-load-tp205514p205808.html
Sent from the Fedora Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines

On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 13:23 -0800, Mike Cloaked wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Mail Llists [via Fedora Users]
> <ml-node+205715-924583685@n3.nabble.com> wrote:
> > On 02/13/2010 01:03 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >> (Note: chrome, not chromium). I just updated this morning and get this:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> i.e. lots of "not found"s which weren't there before. This is 32-bit
> >> Chrome on F12 64-bit and had been working up till now. Note that the
> >
> > For what its worth I'm using the 64bit version with no problem at all.
>
> Likewise I am using 32 bit with no problems - I set up the google repo
> and installed as google-chrome-beta from the repo and it set up an
> appropriate repo file to update itself when necessary - the OP did not
> say how he installed or updated, nor whether he is using a beta or
> devel version?

As I did say, I dl'ed from the official Google repo, which currently
distributes a Beta. However the update (*from the 64-bit repo* was a
32-bit executable, which is why it failed, i.e. it was misfiled by
whoever maintains these things.

As I also said, the 64-bit version downloaded directly from Google's
page did work correctly.

oc

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines

On 02/13/2010 06:04 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

> As I did say, I dl'ed from the official Google repo, which currently
> distributes a Beta. However the update (*from the 64-bit repo* was a
> 32-bit executable, which is why it failed, i.e. it was misfiled by
> whoever maintains these things.
>
> As I also said, the 64-bit version downloaded directly from Google's
> page did work correctly.
>

Sorry - to be more clear - i yum updated the beta and it stayed a
workign 64 bit version.

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines

On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 19:02 -0500, Mail Lists wrote:
> On 02/13/2010 06:04 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> > As I did say, I dl'ed from the official Google repo, which currently
> > distributes a Beta. However the update (*from the 64-bit repo* was a
> > 32-bit executable, which is why it failed, i.e. it was misfiled by
> > whoever maintains these things.
> >
> > As I also said, the 64-bit version downloaded directly from Google's
> > page did work correctly.
> >
>
> Sorry - to be more clear - i yum updated the beta and it stayed a
> workign 64 bit version.

Tried it again and it worked.

Now I realize what happened. I was actually using the 32-bit version in
order to get Java to work, so the update pulled in a new 32-bit version.
Apologies again, must engage brain. Especially apologies for accusing
the repo maintainer for putting up the wrong version :-)

However this 32-bit version *does* fail because of missing libraries,
which are not really missing (see OP). So I'm back to the beginning.
What to do?

poc


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines