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

Bug#698863: marked as done (i386 ldd run against amd64 ld-*.so -> exited with unknown exit code (127))

Your message dated Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:26:35 -0700
with message-id <20130129062635.GV29056@0c3.net>
and subject line i386 ldd run against amd64 ld-*.so -> exited with unknown exit code
has caused the Debian Bug report #698863,
regarding i386 ldd run against amd64 ld-*.so -> exited with unknown exit code (127)
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
698863: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=698863
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: libc-bin
Version: 2.13-38
Severity: wishlist
This is what happens when I run i386 ldd against the amd64 dynamic linker: 

$ ldd /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-2.16.so
loader cannot load itself
ldd: exited with unknown exit code (127)
If with it printed the usual "not a dynamic executable" and continued processing other files provided on the command-line (if there are any) instead. 


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
   APT prefers unstable
   APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: amd64

Kernel: Linux 3.7-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=pl_PL.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--
Jakub Wilk

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
This bug doesn't exist in a pure unstable (2.13) setup, as the incorrect
self-loading checks were introduced in glibc 2.14, and this has been
fixed in 2.17 in experimental.

... Adam

--- End Message ---
Reply to: