[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Installed libs wrongly used on 64-bit Linux?

From: Bob Friesenhahn
Subject: Re: Installed libs wrongly used on 64-bit Linux?
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:13:37 -0600 (CST)

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Tim Mooney wrote:

In my case, I'm 100% certain that the problem relates to the fact that
I'm using a build root while packaging the software (RPM).  Are both of your
users doing the same?

One user (the one with the link to the installed library) used a Gentoo ebuild and another used a SRPM spec file. Perhaps both of these use a build root.

I'm almost certain the problem is that there's a


from version 1.0 of package "bar", and when I'm building "bar" version 1.1
and it builds version 1.1 of, during the relink phase of make
install, bar is being linked against the version 1.0 that's in
/usr/local/lib/64, rather than the version 1.1 that was just
installed in e.g. /tmp/build/bar/usr/local/lib/64.

It seems that the CentOS user is seeing different issues. When he runs 'ldd' (as root) on the installed shared library or module, ldd complains that it is not executable by the user. It seems that the executable bits are not set on the .so files. However, even after adding executable bits, ldd reports the same.

These are presumably 32 bit builds on a bi-modal system with a 64-bit Linux kernel. I notice that the RPM build installs libraries under /lib/64. Is it possible that the OS will refuse to use 32 bit objects installed under /lib/64? The dependent executable does execute, but fails to load any of its modules.

Perhaps the problem is something simple, but the libltdl bug which discards the error reported by the OS is getting in the way of diagnosing the issue.

Bob Friesenhahn
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]