Package Details: unity-editor-bin 5.6.2x2017.2.0+f3-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only)
Package Base: unity-editor-bin
Description: The world's most popular development platform for creating 2D and 3D multiplatform games and interactive experiences.
Upstream URL:
Keywords: dev develop engine game IDE unity3d
Licenses: custom
Conflicts: unity-editor
Provides: unity-editor=5.6.2x2017.2.0+f3
Submitter: edh
Maintainer: edh
Last Packager: edh
Votes: 19
Popularity: 0.083547
First Submitted: 2015-08-29 17:13
Last Updated: 2017-10-16 06:39

Dependencies (20)

Required by (10)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

edh commented on 2018-01-18 18:56

Unfortunately upstream seems to have stop providing debian packages. I will wait another couple of days (at most a few weeks) and will delete the package if there is still no official debian package available.

edh commented on 2017-04-12 16:47

@amurrux @luckyroy
I am sorry to hear, that the program is not working for you. However I am unable to reproduce the error using a clean chroot on my computer.
Though I can not be absolutely certain that the package is not at fault, I would nevertheless recommend that you voice your concerns on the unity forums or their bug tracker.

luckyroy commented on 2017-04-11 20:06

@ammurux; Same here, I'm having the same startup failures on unity-editor 1:5.6.0f3+20170331-1 as are others. Anyone know a "stable" startup release to fall back on?

amurrux commented on 2017-04-04 13:37

after running "valgrind ./Unity" I've got the following output:
Process terminating with default action of signal 6 (SIGABRT): dumping core
==28334== at 0x10E97A10: raise (in /usr/lib/
==28334== by 0x10E99139: abort (in /usr/lib/
==28334== by 0xD6C6EC: HandleSignal(int, siginfo*, void*) (in /opt/Unity/Editor/Unity)
==28334== by 0x21044C42: ??? (in /opt/Unity/Editor/Data/MonoEmbedRuntime/
==28334== by 0x20FA8A12: ??? (in /opt/Unity/Editor/Data/MonoEmbedRuntime/
==28334== by 0x8965FDF: ??? (in /usr/lib/
==28334== by 0xA39F95D: tcmalloc::CentralFreeList::FetchFromSpans() (in /opt/Unity/Editor/
==28334== by 0xA39FD18: tcmalloc::CentralFreeList::FetchFromSpansSafe() (in /opt/Unity/Editor/
==28334== by 0xA39FDA1: tcmalloc::CentralFreeList::RemoveRange(void**, void**, int) (in /opt/Unity/Editor/
==28334== by 0xA3B1CF0: tcmalloc::ThreadCache::FetchFromCentralCache(unsigned long, unsigned long) (in /opt/Unity/Editor/
==28334== by 0xCF989F4: tc_malloc_skip_new_handler (in /opt/Unity/Editor/
==28334== by 0xA40A688: base::UncheckedMalloc(unsigned long, void**) (in /opt/Unity/Editor/

I'm getting error while trying to launch the unity-editor. Splash screen appears and all then I create a new project and oops, It crashes with a SIGABRT.
I executed it with gdb and I got the following output:

Starting program: /opt/Unity/Editor/Unity
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library "/usr/lib/".
[New Thread 0x7ffff7fe0700 (LWP 23516)]
[New Thread 0x7fffe1262700 (LWP 23517)]
[New Thread 0x7fffe1061700 (LWP 23518)]
[New Thread 0x7fffdcc04700 (LWP 23553)]
[New Thread 0x7fffdc403700 (LWP 23554)]
[New Thread 0x7fffdb0fc700 (LWP 23555)]
[New Thread 0x7fffda6a3700 (LWP 23557)]
[New Thread 0x7fffd9ea2700 (LWP 23558)]
[New Thread 0x7fffe0827700 (LWP 23559)]
[New Thread 0x7fffd965b700 (LWP 23560)]
[New Thread 0x7fffd963a700 (LWP 23561)]
[New Thread 0x7fffd7fba700 (LWP 23562)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc75b3700 (LWP 23563)]
[New Thread 0x7ffff7fa8700 (LWP 23564)]
[New Thread 0x7ffff7e19700 (LWP 23565)]
[New Thread 0x7fffe0806700 (LWP 23566)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc6db2700 (LWP 23567)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc65b1700 (LWP 23568)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc5db0700 (LWP 23569)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc55af700 (LWP 23570)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc4dae700 (LWP 23571)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc45ad700 (LWP 23572)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc3dac700 (LWP 23573)]
[Thread 0x7fffdc403700 (LWP 23554) exited]
[New Thread 0x7fffdc403700 (LWP 23578)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc339e700 (LWP 23579)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc2b9d700 (LWP 23580)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc239c700 (LWP 23581)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc131b700 (LWP 23582)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc065c700 (LWP 23585)]
[New Thread 0x7fffbf996700 (LWP 23593)]
[New Thread 0x7fffbf115700 (LWP 23594)]
[New Thread 0x7fffbe894700 (LWP 23595)]
[New Thread 0x7fffbe093700 (LWP 23617)]
[Thread 0x7fffbe093700 (LWP 23617) exited]
[New Thread 0x7fffbe093700 (LWP 23642)]
[New Thread 0x7fffbd892700 (LWP 23643)]
[New Thread 0x7fffb8e8c700 (LWP 23644)]
[Thread 0x7fffb8e8c700 (LWP 23644) exited]
[New Thread 0x7fffb8e8c700 (LWP 23645)]
[New Thread 0x7fffdf85f700 (LWP 23646)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc191d700 (LWP 23647)]

Thread 1 "Unity" received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x000000000257f00c in GfxDeviceGLES::~GfxDeviceGLES ()

I've unity-editor-bin 5.6.0xf1-1

edh commented on 2016-05-08 08:57

Actually merely packages which could be build from source but are not should be suffixed with -bin. This is the reason why it is okay that the package you co-maintain is called unity-editor. This packages however goes one step further and simply repackages the content of the debian package: A already complete binary package ready to use on debian. It is more about whether your actually build a package or are repacking one. This saves quite a lot of disk space on assembling the files is faster. The naming convention for this is to suffix it with -bin because it repackages a already existing binary package. Bear in mind that it is not bound to debian. If the rpm package at some point offers better Arch compatibility, it would be a reason to switch.
Just search through the AUR and reassure yourself of this naming schema.

jurf commented on 2016-05-07 09:05

The correct name for this package should be unity-editor-deb, not bin, because both this and unity-editor are built from binaries, so it just adds confusion.

Schala commented on 2015-09-30 07:33

FYI, Monodevelop isn't needed. It's just the default setting.

edh commented on 2015-08-31 15:45

@DoctorJellyface I handle thinks like the developers did: I merely refer to the URL of the license. This is done as well in /usr/share/doc/unity-editor/copyright, hence it should be fine for the creators.

jurf commented on 2015-08-31 11:09

Hey, FYI we skip the eula checksum at the orig package, since it changes quite a lot, but updpkgsums ignores that.

edh commented on 2015-08-30 22:16

@gsingh93 Thanks a lot for the hint! The error occured due to the fact that the eula page updates every once in a while. However the problem should be fixed now.

All comments