SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

April 2015

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text 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:
From:
Mark Stodola <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mark Stodola <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:02:56 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (35 lines)
On 04/27/2015 06:31 PM, Steven Haigh wrote:
> On 28/04/2015 7:07 AM, Ken Teh 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.
>
> /lib/ld-linux.so is a 32 bit library. The 64 bit libraries are usually
> in /lib64/
>
> You can install the 32 bit libraries on a 64 bit system - and things
> will work.
>
> Start with:
> yum whatprovides "/lib/ld-linux.so"
>

Issuing a 'file' command on the executable will tell you if their claims 
are true.

For example (32-bit SL5):
$ file /bin/bash

/bin/bash: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for 
GNU/Linux 2.6.9, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 
2.6.9, stripped

As Steven said, installing the 32bit libs is probably the easiest way 
out.  This is where 'ldd' is your friend.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2