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

[Dennis Kempin]

Package: wine64
Version: 8.0~rc3~repack-1
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: dennis...@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

[Junichi Uekawa]

`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.

[Bernhard Übelacker]

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

[Jens Reyer]

[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

[Junichi Uekawa]

> [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.

[Junichi Uekawa]

>
> 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?

[Jens Reyer]

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

[Bernhard Übelacker]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 18:53:01 +0900 Junichi Uekawa <dan...@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:

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