Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

Help! amd-64 build needed for Ubuntu:

 [1/11] from: tim-johnsons:web at: 24-May-2007 14:46


Hi; For references see this topic Problems installing Rebol on Ubuntu To make a long story short, the 32-bit rebol builds for ubuntu are looking for a file that does not exist on 64-bit ubuntu. That is - ld-linux.so.2 which is an "old" dynamic linker. This is turning out to be a real emergency for me. I've just spent a week setting up ubuntu 7.04 on a new 64-bit machine. If a 64-bit rebol build is not available, I'm really screwed. That is turning out to be a really nasty surprise, I hate to sound grouchy or desperate here, but this is my living - writing code and at least half of it is on rebol. And while we're at it, why not make it available to the ubuntu repositories, we're talking about one of the most widely used linuxes. I hope some from RT or associated with RT can give me a timeline. thanks tim -- Tim Johnson <tim-johnsons-web.com> Palmer, Alaska, USA

 [2/11] from: btiffin::rogers::com at: 24-May-2007 19:10


Hi, I set my last note just as you new one came in. Can ubuntu 7 not install the old link loader? There must be some docs on running old ELF binaries or 32bit code on ubuntu 7? Does the 7.0 apt-get not let you install ld-linux.so.2 for instance? I live in Debian land, avoided going 64bit with my last two machines, but I can only guess the ubuntu team is not going to burn users with older binaries... Cheers, Brian On Thursday 24 May 2007 10:46, Tim Johnson wrote:

 [3/11] from: tim-johnsons:web at: 24-May-2007 15:55


On Thursday 24 May 2007 23:10, Brian Tiffin wrote:
> Hi, > I set my last note just as you new one came in.
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> Does the 7.0 apt-get not let you install > ld-linux.so.2 for instance?
I haven't been able to make that happen: Here's the output for apt-get: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Package ldso is not available, but is referred to by another package. This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or is only available from another source However the following packages replace it: libc6-dev libc6 E: Package ldso has no installation candidate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you have any ideas as to whether "referred to by another package" means that I can still get it? If so, how?
> I live in Debian land, avoided going 64bit with my last > two machines, but I can only guess the ubuntu team > is not going to burn users with older binaries...
This is been a lloonngg journey. I attempted to install debian 4.0, that is really what I wanted, but I had a mysterious network timeout that I never could resolve. I had to give it up after a week of trying. Thanks tim
> Cheers, > Brian
<<quoted lines omitted: 8>>
> > thanks > > tim
-- Tim Johnson <tim-johnsons-web.com> Palmer, Alaska, USA

 [4/11] from: tim-johnsons:web at: 24-May-2007 15:58


On Thursday 24 May 2007 23:10, Brian Tiffin wrote:
> I live in Debian land, avoided going 64bit with my last > two machines, but I can only guess the ubuntu team > is not going to burn users with older binaries...
Sent that last one before I was finished .... ubuntu has a linux32 utility. As in linux32 rebol, but that didn't work either - I think the same issue with the dynamic loader. I had no idea that I was going to encounter this problem, tim -- Tim Johnson <tim-johnsons-web.com> Palmer, Alaska, USA

 [5/11] from: btiffin:rogers at: 24-May-2007 20:18


Tim, Depending on how desperate things are getting... Closely scan the aptitude (or synaptic) database for ld-linux.so.2 or similar. It may be buried under a different name or you may need to update the sources.list in /etc/apt to point to an older/different ubuntu repository. Was Hoary the name? or Look into docs on firefox32. I didn't read much, it may be "cheating" but it may install the libs you need. :) Next, take a look at chrooting a 32 bit environment. I'm not a huge fan of chroot but it may get the job done for you http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=24575 Keep looking...I'm near positive the ubuntu team thought about these issues. Anything based on Debian has got to be good, so... :) It snowed 15cm in Calgary today...just to let you think about something else for a second or two...it's not my town...just distracting you. :) How's life in Alaska? Cheers, Brian On Thursday 24 May 2007 11:58, Tim Johnson wrote:

 [6/11] from: tim-johnsons:web at: 24-May-2007 16:45


Hi Brian: I've got to pound out some code now, but I will look at the chroot option as soon as I can. Just had a little brain-fart: If Gabriele has ld-linux.so.2 on his machine, could he send it to me? Wouldn't hurt to try it.
> It snowed 15cm in Calgary today...just to let you think about something > else for a second or two...it's not my town...just distracting you. :) > How's life in Alaska?
Getting green fast (last couple of weeks), breezy and 70 F. - that's about as hot as I like it after 36 years up north. Hey thanks for all the good info. I'm feeling a little better for it. tim -- Tim Johnson <tim-johnsons-web.com> Palmer, Alaska, USA

 [7/11] from: btiffin:rogers at: 24-May-2007 22:30


Sorry TIm, I didn't think those would work. To many what ifs and OS build dependencies. But how far did the strace get this time, or did it just crash and burn (my assumption)? (Just so everyone knows, I sent Tim a copy of the missing ld-linux.so.2 from a Debian system in a private mail along with a link loader from my /lib64 directory...something we free os types are allowed to do and even talk about publicly). I'm not to sure what else to say, but I have a real gut feel that a solution is out there in google land. A ubuntu compiled copy may work better...fishing now... well the last attempt was a fishing expedition as well. Not to rub it in, but this is why I skipped over 64bit machines this time around. I'll wait until poor hacks (like you, sorry) get some more of the kinks out. :) It'll work...it's gotta. Cheers, Brian On Thursday 24 May 2007 20:18, Brian Tiffin wrote:

 [8/11] from: pwawood::gmail::com at: 25-May-2007 10:36


Tim Did you try to run the Windows 32-bit version of Rebol under 64-bit Wine just to get something up and running? Regards Peter On Friday, May 25, 2007, at 12:45 am, Tim Johnson wrote:

 [9/11] from: anton::wilddsl::net::au at: 25-May-2007 13:43


Hi Tim, I think "referred to by another package." just means the other package wants ldso. Regards, Anton.

 [10/11] from: volker::nitsch::gmail::com at: 25-May-2007 11:10


Did some googling, and know ubuntu, but no 64bit. Maybe it gives hints. googlet "ld-linux.so.2 ubuntu". http://www.ubuntu-forum.de/archive/13810/thread.html, german. Google gives me german all the time, tries to be smart :) Says Edgy AMD64, need to run "bibble", 32bit, binary only, so similar problem. Most things are chat, but finishs: search http://packages.ubuntu.com -> need libc6-i386. Need also libstdc++5, ia32-libs und ia32-libs-gtk http://packages.ubuntu.com has a search for files at the bottom, which leads here: http://packages.ubuntu.com/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?word=ld-linux.so.2&searchmode=searchfiles&case=insensitive&version=feisty&arch=i386 (watch for linebreaks ;) Says You have searched for ld-linux.so.2 in feisty, architecture i386. ... lib/ld-linux.so.2 base/libc6 lib/tls/i686/cmov/ld-linux.so.2 libs/libc6-i686 lib/tls/i686/nosegneg/ld-linux.so.2 libs/libc6-xen [universe] usr/lib/debug/ld-linux.so.2 libdevel/libc6-dbg You got However the following packages replace it: libc6-dev libc6 look like a match. I hope this is a step in the right direction. -Volker Am Donnerstag, den 24.05.2007, 15:55 +0000 schrieb Tim Johnson:

 [11/11] from: tim-johnsons::web::com at: 25-May-2007 7:30


On Friday 25 May 2007 02:36, Peter Wood wrote:
> Tim > > Did you try to run the Windows 32-bit version of Rebol under 64-bit > Wine just to get something up and running?
Not yet, that would have been _part_ of the fix if I couldn't have gotten working. But see another topic: "Running 32-bit rebol on 64-bit ubuntu" :-) coming soon... -- Tim Johnson <tim-johnsons-web.com> Palmer, Alaska, USA

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted