Installing STM32CubeIDE on OpenSuse Tumbleweed

[hj]

Installing STM32CubeMx on OpenSuse Tumbleweed using

/st-stm32cubeide_1.1.0_4551_20191014_1140_amd64.rpm_bundle.s

is missing libusbx

sudo ./st-stm32cubeide_1.1.0_4551_20191014_1140_amd64.rpm_bundle.sh 
[sudo] Passwort für root: 
Creating directory st-stm32cubeide_1.1.0_4551_20191014_1140_amd64.rpm_bundle.sh.root
Verifying archive integrity... All good.
Uncompressing STM32CubeIDE installer  100%  
Verifying...                          ################################# [100%]
Preparing...                          ################################# [100%]
        package segger-jlink-udev-rules-6.44c-4.noarch is already installed
error: Failed dependencies:
        libusbx >= 1.0 is needed by st-stlink-server-1.2.0-3.amd64
Verifying...                          ################################# [100%]
Preparing...                          ################################# [100%]
        package st-stlink-udev-rules-1.0.2-2.noarch is already installed
error: Failed dependencies:
        st-stlink-server is needed by st-stm32cubeide_1.1.0-1.1.0-4551_20191014_1140.x86_64

libusbx is not available for OpenSuse. On https://sourceforge.net/projects/libusbx/

SourceForge: libusbx is OBSOLETE and has been superseded by http://libusb.info

What can I do?

[JDavi.14]

So I got it to install. I used the generic installer, opened with Sudo and allowed it to ignore the dependencies. At the licence pressing q then y works.

I have attempted one hello world but it doesn't seem to compile so I'll fight for another few days or just spin up win-doze on a VM

[Pavel A.]

This is the situation with Linux. Linux is free. CubeIDE is free too. Your time and effort has price. You decide whether it's worth it.

[hj]

:smiling_face_with_smiling_eyes:

[hj]

rpm package asks for yum to install

License accepted.
error: Failed dependencies:
        libusbx >= 1.0 is needed by st-stlink-server-2.1.0-1.x86_64
Verifying...                          ################################# [100%]
Preparing...                          ################################# [100%]
        package st-stlink-udev-rules-1.0.3-2.x86_64 is already installed
./setup.sh: Zeile 21: yum: Kommando nicht gefunden.
./setup.sh: Zeile 21: yum: Kommando nicht gefunden.

still the libusbx dependenci

[hj]

st-stm32cubeide_1.11.2_14494_20230119_0724.unsigned_amd64.sh

installs the software and starts correct.

May be libusb is missing later when trying to connect to segger

[JDavi.14]

Windows and MacOS are free too Pavel so I'm not sure you understand the ecosystem very well. Thank you for your helpful comment though.

[lukas_x]

I have been able to resolve this problem by installing the libusbx manually.
First, navigate to https://centos.pkgs.org/9-stream/centos-baseos-x86_64/libusbx-1.0.24-4.el9.x86_64.rpm.html
Then get the rpm file from one of the URLs in the Download section, for example:

wget https://mirror.stream.centos.org/9-stream/BaseOS/x86_64/os/Packages/libusbx-1.0.24-4.el9.x86_64.rpm

Install the rpm file, then rerun the installation script.

If you were having a problem with libncurses.so.5, make sure to install the 32-bit version of the library: 

sudo zypper install libncurses5-32bit

[Uwe Bonnes]

Another option is to unpack the resulting files during installation, simply drop the libusbx requirements, repack and install the changed file.

I think I have made some notes when doing so last time, but at the moment I do not find these notes.

It's a pity that nobody at ST cares for this silly problem for years!

[Magnus_1966]

Today it's 9th. January 2026 it still produce the same error!

Why nobody from ST tries to solve the error?

They want to force us to use windows ideally with ms office m365?

[Ozone]

I have no such problems on a Debian-based system (Mint), which has a dpkg / apt  based package management system instead of RPM.

While ST appears huge, the size of the software department and it's resources is surely not, and thus they focus effort on the most commonly used systems first.
This is pure economics, at least we get a Linux version at all - in contrast to some other vendors.
And, quoting economics, one must always relate quality (and expected quality) to price.

I can't remember to have seen any RPM-based system (SuSe, Fedora) amongst the distribution it was tested on, although I might be wrong here.