[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [SLUG] Why does my executable not well.....Execute!




On 20-Jun-01 Peter Rundle wrote:
>> ldd xsnow should give you the answer to that
> 
> 
> On Rh7.1
> 
>   $ ldd `which xsnow`
>   /usr/bin/ldd: /usr/X11R6/bin/xsnow: No such file or directory
> 
> 
> On Rh6.2
> 
>    $ ldd `which xsnow`
>    libXext.so.6 => /usr/i486-linux-libc5/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x40014000)
>    libX11.so.6 => /usr/i486-linux-libc5/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x4001e000)
>    libm.so.5 => /usr/i486-linux-libc5/lib/libm.so.5 (0x400b0000)
>    libc.so.5 => /usr/i486-linux-libc5/lib/libc.so.5 (0x400b8000)

your xsnow is linked with some very old libc (as in pre-glibc) libraries.

Uou probably do not have these comparibility libraries on your new system.

As I recall, they were on the RH 6.x systems ONLY as compatibility libraries
(which is to say that libc is _way_ old). I think that any current distribution
be it RH, SUSE, Debian, or whatever else, will also gibe you this same problem.

You need to locate the source rpm, and recompile this proggy. Once you
have the source rpm it's real easy.

        rpm -i <name>.src.rpm
        cd /usr/src/redhat/SPECS
        ls (to see what the spec file name is).
        rpm -bb <spec file>.spec
        rpm -i /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/<name>.rpm

(more or less).

> Hmmm, ok so we look on the rh7.1 install and find libXext.so.6 and
> libX11.so.6 but libm.so.5 and libc.so.5 are missing. I thought that
> Linux had this library version thing under control. Like the binary
> looks for libm.so not libm.so.5. What's going on Linux this is looking
> like a bad case of windows ddl hell.

you've got _really_ really old exectables. You'll probably have a difficult
time getting them running on any current distro.

The fact that ldd says "NSF" means that it is refusing to recognize the
executable as a legitamite executable. (if this maybe an a.out, as opposed to
modern ELF executable ?)

> So I grab the libs off the Rh6.2
> box and stick them on the 7.1 box and....Nothing works :-(
> 
> Backward binary compatiblity between kernels Hah!
> 
> What's the time line look like for a stable version of Debian on
> the 2.4 kernel?

I'll guarantee that that won't solve the  problem you are seeing with the
executables you are seeing it with.

best rgds,

-Greg


> rgds
> 
> Pete
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
> More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
"DOS Computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq, Tandy, and
millions of others are by far the most popular, with about 70 million
machines in use wordwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, may note that
cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone do
not denote a higher life form."       (New York Times, November 26, 1991)
| Greg Hosler                           i-net:  hosler@nospam.lugs.org.sg    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug