Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1134611 > unrolled thread

Bug#1029536: wine64: wine does not start with "wine: could not exec the wine loader"

Started byDennis Kempin <denniskempin@google.com>
First post2023-01-24 00:00 +0100
Last post2023-02-18 15:00 +0100
Articles 8 — 4 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

Contents

  Bug#1029536: wine64: wine does not start with "wine: could not exec the wine loader" Dennis Kempin <denniskempin@google.com> - 2023-01-24 00:00 +0100
    Bug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp> - 2023-01-24 14:20 +0100
      Bug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT Bernhard Übelacker <bernhardu@mailbox.org> - 2023-02-07 14:30 +0100
    Bug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT Jens Reyer <jre.winesim@gmail.com> - 2023-02-07 23:10 +0100
      Bug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp> - 2023-02-12 10:50 +0100
      Bug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp> - 2023-02-12 11:00 +0100
    Bug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT Jens Reyer <jre.winesim@gmail.com> - 2023-02-13 22:00 +0100
      Bug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT Bernhard Übelacker <bernhardu@mailbox.org> - 2023-02-18 15:00 +0100

#1134611 — Bug#1029536: wine64: wine does not start with "wine: could not exec the wine loader"

FromDennis Kempin <denniskempin@google.com>
Date2023-01-24 00:00 +0100
SubjectBug#1029536: wine64: wine does not start with "wine: could not exec the wine loader"
Message-ID<FRdXb-FBL-41@gated-at.bofh.it>
Package: wine64
Version: 8.0~rc3~repack-1
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: denniskempin@google.com

Dear Maintainer,

Steps to reproduce:

docker run -it docker.io/debian:testing-slim
# apt update && apt install wine64
# wine64-stable wineboot

Result: 

wine: could not exec the wine loader

This used to work in the previous version 7.0.1

I am not sure if this issue only appears in docker or on
normal installs as well.

Unfortunately wine does not give more info beyond this
obscure error message.

-- Package-specific info:
/usr/bin/wine points to /usr/bin/wine-stable.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: bookworm/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 5.19.11-1rodete1-amd64 (SMP w/128 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: unable to detect

Versions of packages wine64 depends on:
ii  libc6    2.36-7
ii  libwine  8.0~rc3~repack-1

Versions of packages wine64 recommends:
ii  wine [wine]  8.0~rc3~repack-1
pn  wine32       <none>

Versions of packages wine64 suggests:
pn  wine64-preloader  <none>

wine depends on no packages.

Versions of packages wine suggests:
pn  dosbox                        <none>
pn  exe-thumbnailer | kio-extras  <none>
pn  playonlinux                   <none>
pn  q4wine                        <none>
pn  winbind                       <none>
pn  wine-binfmt                   <none>
pn  winetricks                    <none>

Versions of packages libwine depends on:
ii  libasound2                       1.2.8-1+b1
ii  libc6                            2.36-7
ii  libcapi20-3                      1:3.27-3+b1
ii  libfontconfig1                   2.14.1-3
ii  libfreetype6                     2.12.1+dfsg-4
ii  libglib2.0-0                     2.74.4-1
ii  libgphoto2-6                     2.5.30-1
ii  libgphoto2-port12                2.5.30-1
ii  libgstreamer-plugins-base1.0-0   1.20.5-1
ii  libgstreamer1.0-0                1.20.5-1
ii  libpcap0.8                       1.10.3-1
ii  libpulse0                        16.1+dfsg1-2+b1
ii  libudev1                         252.4-1
ii  libunwind8                       1.6.2-3
ii  libusb-1.0-0                     2:1.0.26-1
ii  libx11-6                         2:1.8.3-3
ii  libxext6                         2:1.3.4-1+b1
ii  libz-mingw-w64                   1.2.13+dfsg-1
ii  ocl-icd-libopencl1 [libopencl1]  2.3.1-1

Versions of packages libwine recommends:
ii  fonts-liberation           1:1.07.4-11
ii  fonts-wine                 8.0~rc3~repack-1
ii  gstreamer1.0-plugins-good  1.20.5-1
ii  libasound2-plugins         1.2.7.1-1
ii  libcups2                   2.4.2-1+b2
ii  libdbus-1-3                1.14.4-1
ii  libgl1                     1.6.0-1
ii  libgl1-mesa-dri            22.3.3-1
ii  libgnutls30                3.7.8-4
ii  libgssapi-krb5-2           1.20.1-1
ii  libkrb5-3                  1.20.1-1
ii  libodbc2                   2.3.11-2
ii  libosmesa6                 22.3.3-1
ii  libsdl2-2.0-0              2.26.2+dfsg-1
ii  libv4l-0                   1.22.1-5+b1
ii  libvulkan1                 1.3.231.1-1
ii  libxcomposite1             1:0.4.5-1
ii  libxcursor1                1:1.2.1-1
ii  libxfixes3                 1:6.0.0-2
ii  libxi6                     2:1.8-1+b1
ii  libxinerama1               2:1.1.4-3
ii  libxrandr2                 2:1.5.2-2+b1
ii  libxrender1                1:0.9.10-1.1
ii  libxxf86vm1                1:1.1.4-1+b2

Versions of packages libwine suggests:
pn  cups-bsd                   <none>
pn  gstreamer1.0-libav         <none>
pn  gstreamer1.0-plugins-bad   <none>
pn  gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly  <none>
pn  ttf-mscorefonts-installer  <none>

Versions of packages wine64 is related to:
pn  dxvk                     <none>
pn  dxvk-wine32-development  <none>
pn  dxvk-wine64-development  <none>
ii  fonts-wine               8.0~rc3~repack-1

-- no debconf information

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1134661 — Bug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT

FromJunichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp>
Date2023-01-24 14:20 +0100
SubjectBug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT
Message-ID<FRrns-OOB-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1134611
`wine64 wineboot` runs, /usr/lib/wine/wine64 is there.
`wine64-stable wineboot` fails, /usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable is not there.


according to strace:
execve("/usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable", ["/usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable", "wineboot"], 0x7e641390 /* 21 vars */) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
write(2, "wine: ", 6wine: )                   = 6
write(2, "could not exec the wine loader\n", 31could not exec the wine loader
) = 31

and indeed the file is not there.

Not sure what it was before.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1136804 — Bug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT

FromBernhard Übelacker <bernhardu@mailbox.org>
Date2023-02-07 14:30 +0100
SubjectBug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT
Message-ID<FWwcO-4ap8-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1134661
Dear Maintainer,
if one creates this wine64-stable just as a link to wine64,
then `wine64-stable wineboot` would start to work.

# ln -s wine64 /usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable

Kind regards,
Bernhard


(rr)
692         execv( argv[1], argv + 1 );
(rr) print argv[1]
$2 = 0x7e848400 "/usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable"
(rr) shell ls -lisah /usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable
ls: cannot access '/usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable': No such file or directory
(rr) bt
#0  preloader_exec (argv=argv@entry=0x7e8483d0) at dlls/ntdll/unix/loader.c:692
#1  0x00007f5e1d159a6b in loader_exec (machine=34404, argv=0x7e8483d0) at dlls/ntdll/unix/loader.c:716
#2  __wine_main (argc=<optimized out>, argv=0x7ffd65438648, envp=0x7ffd65438660) at dlls/ntdll/unix/loader.c:2416
#3  0x000000007d001254 in main ()
(rr)


$ ls -lisah /usr/bin/wine64-stable /usr/bin/wine64 /usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable /usr/lib/wine/wine64
ls: cannot access '/usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable': No such file or directory
674145   0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  24 Jan 27 02:36 /usr/bin/wine64 -> /etc/alternatives/wine64
673301   0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  18 Jan 27 02:36 /usr/bin/wine64-stable -> ../lib/wine/wine64
673289 16K -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 15K Jan 27 02:36 /usr/lib/wine/wine64

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1136902 — Bug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT

FromJens Reyer <jre.winesim@gmail.com>
Date2023-02-07 23:10 +0100
SubjectBug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT
Message-ID<FWEk2-4fDh-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1134611
On 07.02.23 14:22, Bernhard Übelacker wrote:
> Dear Maintainer,
> if one creates this wine64-stable just as a link to wine64,
> then `wine64-stable wineboot` would start to work.
> 
> # ln -s wine64 /usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable
> 
> Kind regards,
> Bernhard
> 
> 
> (rr)
> 692         execv( argv[1], argv + 1 );
> (rr) print argv[1]
> $2 = 0x7e848400 "/usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable"
> (rr) shell ls -lisah /usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable
> ls: cannot access '/usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable': No such file or directory
> (rr) bt
> #0  preloader_exec (argv=argv@entry=0x7e8483d0) at 
> dlls/ntdll/unix/loader.c:692
> #1  0x00007f5e1d159a6b in loader_exec (machine=34404, argv=0x7e8483d0) 
> at dlls/ntdll/unix/loader.c:716
> #2  __wine_main (argc=<optimized out>, argv=0x7ffd65438648, 
> envp=0x7ffd65438660) at dlls/ntdll/unix/loader.c:2416
> #3  0x000000007d001254 in main ()
> (rr)
> 
> 
> $ ls -lisah /usr/bin/wine64-stable /usr/bin/wine64 
> /usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable /usr/lib/wine/wine64
> ls: cannot access '/usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable': No such file or directory
> 674145   0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  24 Jan 27 02:36 /usr/bin/wine64 -> 
> /etc/alternatives/wine64
> 673301   0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  18 Jan 27 02:36 
> /usr/bin/wine64-stable -> ../lib/wine/wine64
> 673289 16K -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 15K Jan 27 02:36 /usr/lib/wine/wine64

[Ex-maintainer here]

The -stable suffix was added for the Debian alternatives system. While I 
don't expect an issue with adding an /usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable link, I 
wonder if the whole issue is really a bug (still probably a regression, 
which I can't comment on since I'm not involved in current packaging) or 
wrong usage.

I don't know what you want to do exactly, but generally I (and afaik 
upstream) recommend to just call "wine", not "wine64". This will default 
to 64-bit anyway (supporting also 32-bit if "wine32" is installed).

To force 64 bit you may set "WINEARCH=win64".

To create a new wineprefix just issue "WINEARCH=win64 wineboot" (without 
"wine" or "wine64" in front).

Of course you need the "wine" package to be installed, which basically 
just contains the relevant wrappers and links. I see no reason to not 
install this recommended package. Comments welcome!

Without "wine" installed you may use
$ /usr/lib/wine/wine64 wineboot

If you install "wine64" and "wine", but not "wine32", you'll get a 
non-critical warning on STDERR:
~~~~~
it looks like wine32 is missing, you should install it.
as root, please execute "apt-get install wine32:i386"
~~~~~
You can disable this (and some Wine output by something like this:
$ WINEDEBUG="-all" wineboot


So I suggest:

docker run -it docker.io/debian:testing-slim
# apt update && apt install wine
# wineboot

Greets
jre

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1137521 — Bug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT

FromJunichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp>
Date2023-02-12 10:50 +0100
SubjectBug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT
Message-ID<FYh9D-5iq3-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1136902
> [Ex-maintainer here]
> 
> The -stable suffix was added for the Debian alternatives system. While
> I don't expect an issue with adding an /usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable
> link, I wonder if the whole issue is really a bug (still probably a
> regression, which I can't comment on since I'm not involved in current
> packaging) or wrong usage.

/usr/bin/wine-stable, and /usr/bin/wine64-stable exist but do not
work; shouldn't they either be removed or fixed with a symlink.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1137523 — Bug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT

FromJunichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp>
Date2023-02-12 11:00 +0100
SubjectBug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT
Message-ID<FYhjj-5itl-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1136902
> 
> The -stable suffix was added for the Debian alternatives system. While
> I don't expect an issue with adding an /usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable
> link, I wonder if the whole issue is really a bug (still probably a
> regression, which I can't comment on since I'm not involved in current
> packaging) or wrong usage.

Somehow /usr/bin/wine-stable has correct files in the right place, so 
/usr/bin/wine-stable works

/usr/bin/wine64-stable fails because of missing files.
Should /usr/bin/wine64-stable be there at all?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1137764 — Bug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT

FromJens Reyer <jre.winesim@gmail.com>
Date2023-02-13 22:00 +0100
SubjectBug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT
Message-ID<FYO5z-5DvT-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1134611
On 12.02.23 10:53, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>>
>> The -stable suffix was added for the Debian alternatives system. While
>> I don't expect an issue with adding an /usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable
>> link, I wonder if the whole issue is really a bug (still probably a
>> regression, which I can't comment on since I'm not involved in current
>> packaging) or wrong usage.
> 
> Somehow /usr/bin/wine-stable has correct files in the right place, so
> /usr/bin/wine-stable works

Yes, as soon as "wine" is installed it sets up the Debian alternatives 
system. (Which is used so both the stable and the development Wine 
packages may use /usr/bin/wine and may even be coinstalled.)  I'm glad 
to see that this part works as intended.


> /usr/bin/wine64-stable fails because of missing files.
> Should /usr/bin/wine64-stable be there at all?

I don't know if we really need /usr/bin/wine64, or could just go with 
/usr/bin/wine and the rest in /usr/lib/wine.  But if we want 
/usr/bin/wine64 then we also need /usr/bin/wine64-stable (for the 
alternatives system).

Currently this is a link to /usr/lib/wine/wine64.  Current maintainers 
may replace it with a wrapper script or provide the link suggested 
previously. (Or figure out why the -stable suffix in the link is now 
expected by the binary, while it wasn't in the past.)

For now, I don't think I can help further, back to retirement

GReets
jre

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1138314 — Bug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT

FromBernhard Übelacker <bernhardu@mailbox.org>
Date2023-02-18 15:00 +0100
SubjectBug#1029536: wine64-stable ENOENT
Message-ID<G0vUR-6N0Y-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1137764
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 18:53:01 +0900 Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp> wrote:
> /usr/bin/wine64-stable fails because of missing files.
> Should /usr/bin/wine64-stable be there at all?

I guess having just package wine64 without package wine
installed should also work?
Then /usr/bin/wine64-stable would be needed.

Otherwise the user might really be expected to start it
via "/usr/lib/wine/wine64 wineboot", like proposed before.

At least the wrapper /usr/bin/wine from package wine
looks like it would not need "/usr/bin/wine64-stable".



Am 13.02.23 um 21:52 schrieb Jens Reyer:
> On 12.02.23 10:53, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>> /usr/bin/wine64-stable fails because of missing files.
>> Should /usr/bin/wine64-stable be there at all?
> 
> I don't know if we really need /usr/bin/wine64, or could just go with 
> /usr/bin/wine and the rest in /usr/lib/wine.  But if we want 
> /usr/bin/wine64 then we also need /usr/bin/wine64-stable (for the 
> alternatives system).
> 
> Currently this is a link to /usr/lib/wine/wine64.  Current maintainers 
> may replace it with a wrapper script or provide the link suggested 
> previously. (Or figure out why the -stable suffix in the link is now 
> expected by the binary, while it wasn't in the past.)

Before following commit [1] wine iterated through PATH environment
to find finally /usr/bin/wine64-stable, which is a link to ../lib/wine/wine64.

Afterwards it looks like it is "just" searching for /usr/lib/wine/wine64-stable.



Kind regards,
Bernhard

[1] https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/commit/ae8562ed2277a5c051e131dc317e94aa3d5413c8
     ntdll: Always use the name of the current loader to exec a new process.

[7.21] https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/blob/053ee2d23d825f800baa16e455a218834aa2dec0/dlls/ntdll/unix/loader.c#L685

[7.22] https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/blob/20d86f34a066657048610803e7143232efa6c0d3/dlls/ntdll/unix/loader.c#L695

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web