SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

April 2015

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: ld-linux.so.2
From:
Stephen John Smoogen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Stephen John Smoogen <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:12:58 -0600
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (843 bytes) , text/html (1327 bytes) 
On 27 April 2015 at 15:07, Ken Teh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I have a user who has installed an executable built on a other Linux
> distro.  Claims it was built on a 64-bit linux (doubtful).  He has no
> problems running it on a 32-bit SL6.x machine but cannot run it on a 64-bit
> SL6.x machine.  Chokes with the following:
>
> ...:/lib/ld-linux.so: bad ELF interpreter: No such file or directory.
>
> I'm wondering if it is "safe" to add a symbolic link to the
> ld-linux-x86_64.so.2 to fix this.
>

Probably not. I would check to see what ldd on the binary says it is trying
to do. If this was built on a system that doesn't understand multi-lib that
EL uses.. you are probably up schlock kreek without a paddle. I believe the
other method that is used is running the 32 bit in a 'chroot' and they
don't play well if not in that or similar.

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2