I was able to find this blurb in the Ubuntu docs which might explain this
behavior

https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/focal/man8/ldconfig.8.html
> Note that *ldconfig* will only look at files that are named *lib*.so**
(for regular shared objects) or *ld-*.so** (for the dynamic loader itself).
Other files will be ignored.

On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 12:05 PM Zyle Moore <[email protected]> wrote:

> No, guile didn't install unistring, I had to build that as well.
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 11:54 AM Greg Troxel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Zyle Moore <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> That's great you got it working.
>>
>> > 1. Add "/usr/local/lib" to a new file in
>> /etc/ld.so.conf.d/usr-local.conf.
>>
>> This is in my view an Ubuntu bug for not allowing the normal RPATH
>> mechanism, and given that they don't, that it wasn't documented well
>> enough that you noticed :-) But apparently adding /usr/local/lib to the
>> ld.so.conf is the plan.  I wonder what the docs said about how files in
>> /etc/ld.so.conf.d are ordered, both among themselves, and relative to
>> the built-in search path, but that's not about guile.
>>
>> > After doing this, running `ldconfig` resulted in this error
>> > /sbin/ldconfig.real: /usr/local/lib/libguile-3.0.so.1.7.1-gdb.scm is
>> not an
>> > ELF file - it has the wrong magic bytes at the start.
>> >
>> > 2. Remove libguile-3.0.so.1.7.1-gdb.scm from /usr/local/lib
>> >
>> > I'm not sure if this is Ubuntu special sauce, or if this file is ending
>> up
>> > there incorrectly, but it really wants everything in all ld folders to
>> be
>> > only ELF files. After doing these two steps after `sudo make install`,
>> > guile seems to be working now.
>>
>> guile script that is helpful for running guile under gdb.  Read it!
>>
>> I don't think there are any rules in the larger POSIX ecosystem about
>> not having files that aren't ELF libs in $prefix/lib.    I see this as a
>> self-inflicted wound by Ubuntu's ld.so.conf decision;  normally a file
>> in $prefix/lib is only even opened if there is a NEEDED/RPATH
>> combination that references it.
>>
>> It may be that having .so in it somwehere is the issue.  There are
>> non-ELF files in lib mnormally.  FWIW on my system:
>>
>>   $ ls -l /usr/pkg/guile/3.0/lib/
>>   total 4120
>>   drwxr-xr-x  3 root  wheel      512 Dec  6  2022 guile
>>   -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  2657138 Apr 26 05:46 libguile-3.0.a
>>   -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel     1063 Apr 26 05:46 libguile-3.0.la
>>   lrwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel       21 Apr 26 05:46 libguile-3.0.so ->
>> libguile-3.0.so.1.7.1
>>   lrwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel       21 Apr 26 05:46 libguile-3.0.so.1 ->
>> libguile-3.0.so.1.7.1
>>   -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  1486880 Apr 26 05:46 libguile-3.0.so.1.7.1
>>   -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel    17469 Apr 26 05:46
>> libguile-3.0.so.1.7.1-gdb.scm
>>   drwxr-xr-x  2 root  wheel      512 Apr 26 05:47 pkgconfig
>>
>>
>> > Below is the output of ldd and objdump for context
>> > ldd:
>> > zymus@abyss:~/src/guile-3.0.11$ ldd /usr/local/bin/guile
>> > linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffc61064000)
>> > libguile-3.0.so.1 => /usr/local/lib/libguile-3.0.so.1
>> (0x00007aecfc4e7000)
>> > libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007aecfc200000)
>> > libgc.so.1 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgc.so.1 (0x00007aecfc472000)
>> > libffi.so.8 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libffi.so.8 (0x00007aecfc465000)
>> > libunistring.so.5 => /usr/local/lib/libunistring.so.5
>> (0x00007aecfc017000)
>> > libgmp.so.10 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgmp.so.10 (0x00007aecfbf95000)
>> > libcrypt.so.1 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypt.so.1
>> (0x00007aecfc429000)
>> > libm.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libm.so.6 (0x00007aecfbeae000)
>> > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007aecfc64a000)
>> >
>> > objdump:
>> > zymus@abyss:~/src/guile-3.0.11$ objdump -x /usr/local/bin/guile | egrep
>> > NEEDED\|RPATH
>> >   NEEDED               libguile-3.0.so.1
>> >   NEEDED               libc.so.6
>>
>> So missing RPATH as you already determined, but otherwise looks fine to
>> me.
>>
>> Did guile insttall unistring, or did you have to build that too?
>>
>

Reply via email to