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

Re: Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64

Hallo Russ Allbery,

2013-01-03 um 19:26:46 schriebst Du:
> Timo Weingärtner <timo@tiwe.de> writes:
> > 2013-01-03 um 18:32:28 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> >> Alexey Eromenko <al4321@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> User error? Huh ?
> >>> 
> >>> No ! This is a Debian Bug !
> >>> Debian clearly says: "File does not exist", while in fact it DOES
> >>> EXIST. This is a 100% proof of Debian bug.
> > 
> > I guess it is bash telling you that.
> > 
> >> That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader for a
> >> binary doesn't exist.  I think that's been the case for as long as
> >> Linux has existed.
> > 
> > That's already reported as bug #609882.
> I think that's asking quite a lot of bash.  Wouldn't it have to open the
> binary and parse the ELF headers, extracting the INTERP header, in order
> to verify that?  Does it really make sense to encode understanding of ELF
> binary layout formats in bash?

As seen in strace bash already checks for existance of the script and the 
#!interpreter. So when execve threw a ENOENT ("The file filename or a script 
or ELF interpreter does not exist, or a shared library needed for file or 
interpreter cannot be found.") it could at least say something like 
"interpreter or libs not found, try ldd for debugging".


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: