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

Re: Help: Strange 64bit issue



Hi Andreas!

Am Dienstag, den 08.07.2008, 14:26 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, William Pitcock wrote:
> 
> > If you do build-depends on gcc-multilib and g++-multilib, it should fix
> > this problem.
> 
> As I said it fixes the build problem - but now I have a package with a
> not working executable.  I guess it is also a simple 64 bit problem which
> might be easily solved by people with multiarch experience:

With these fixes it still did not build on my system. I needed to change
the Build-Depends on lib64z1-dev into zlib1g-dev to get it to build in a
clean pbuilder chroot.

> > On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 22:56 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >>
> >>      svn://svn.debian.org/svn/debian-med/trunk/packages/maq/trunk/
> 
> If I build this stuff I get a package containing /usr/bin/maq (besides
> some Perl scripts).  The problem is:
> 
> 
> $ /usr/bin/maq
> -bash: /usr/bin/maq: cannot execute binary file
> $ ldd /usr/bin/maq
> ldd: exited with unknown exit code (126)

I cannot reproduce this on my amd64 machine. With the change mentioned
above it builds fine and I'm able to run /usr/bin/maq on both lenny and
sid. Some output:

$ /usr/bin/maq 2>&1 | head -n 4 

Program: maq (Mapping and Assembly with Qualities)
Version: 0.6.7
Contact: Heng Li <lh3@sanger.ac.uk>

$ file /usr/bin/maq 
/usr/bin/maq: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for
GNU/Linux 2.6.8, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped

$ ldd /usr/bin/maq 
	linux-vdso.so.1 =>  (0x00007fff2d7fe000)
	libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x00002abe7d4cd000)
	libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (0x00002abe7d6e4000)
	libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x00002abe7d9f0000)
	libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00002abe7dc70000)
	libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x00002abe7de87000)
	/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00002abe7d2b1000)

Best regards
Manuel

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil


Reply to: