"Spacen Jasset" <spacenjas...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:ip9n5d$27je$1...@digitalmars.com... > On 27/04/2011 18:51, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Kai Meyer"<k...@unixlords.com> wrote in message >> news:ip9bro$1lak$1...@digitalmars.com... >>> >>> Can you backup, and help me understand what the first problem was? The >>> one >>> you thought was solvable by statically linking against glibc? >>> >> >> It was the thread "D CGI test: linux.so.2: bad ELF interpreter: No such >> file >> or directory". >> >> Reposted here: >> >> ------------------------- >> >> I've made a little test CGI app: >> >> import std.conv; >> import std.stdio; >> >> void main() >> { >> auto content = "<b><i>Hello world</i></b>"; >> auto headers = >> `HTTP/1.1 200 OK >> Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 >> Content-Length: `~to!string(content.length); >> >> while(readln().length> 1) {} >> >> writeln(headers); >> writeln(); >> writeln(content); >> } >> >> Works on Windows command line and through IIS. And it works on my Kubuntu >> 10.6 (CORRECTION: It's v10.04) command line. But if I copy the executable >> from my Kubuntu box to my >> web host's Debian server (CORRECTION: It's Red Hat, but there is another >> server I'd like to also run on that is Debian): Running it through Apache >> gives me a 500, and running it directly with ssh gives me: >> >> linux.so.2: bad ELF interpreter: No such file or directory >> >> I assume that error message is the cause of the 500 (can't tell for sure >> because the 500 isn't even showing up in my Apache error logs). But I'm >> not >> enough of a linux expert to have the slightest clue what that error >> message >> is all about. I don't need to actually compile it *on* the server do I? I >> would have thought that all (or at least most) Linux distros used the >> same >> executable format - especially (K)Ubuntu and Debian. >> >> > > Yes well hmm. I've done this type of thing before, that is want to make > something run on newer systems. And lo and behold our makefile used static > linking with libc, so I can say authoritatively that in certain > circumstances it does not work. (it it only going to work without doubt if > you run it on the exact same system) > > I've just been to court today (small claims) and it's been a hard day, so > before I rant on, can you tell us what version you want to run said binary > on (distro and version) and what version you are compiling on. >
I'm compiling on Kubuntu v10.04 (32-bit). There's two servers I want to run on, although info on them seems to be difficult to get: 1. Main server: I googled for ways to find the distro and version, and most didn't work (I think my SSH access is sandboxed.) But I was able to get this: $ cat /proc/version Linux version 2.6.18-164.15.1.el5.028stab068.9 (root@rhel5-build-x64) (gcc version 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-46)) #1 SMP Tue Mar 30 18:07:38 MSD 2010 So I guess it's Red Hat 4.1.2? 2. Another server: This one is some shitty host ( ipower.com ) that my client insists on using. There's no SSH access and they're extremely tight-lipped about server details. I couldn't even get them to confirm whether or not it was x86 - and that was after a half hour of trying to get those jokers to comprehend what "x86" and "CPU architecture" even *meant*. All I know is that their control panel reports the system as being "debian", and that despite all of that they still *claim* to support CGI. > > As an example, to solve this problem I have compiled on redhat 2ES and all > binaries now work on redhat 2-3-4 ubuntu 10.10 and so on, i.e. those that > are later in generation than redhat 2. And it all works fine. > > This is what I suggest, if it is possible. i.e. compile on redhat 2, or > perhaps 3. > > Perhaps if you post your build system version and flavour and target > system I'll be able to give you a better answer. > > try lsb_release for this, if you aren't sure (and it's available as a > command) > > jason@ionrift:~$ lsb_release -a > No LSB modules are available. > Distributor ID: Ubuntu > Description: Ubuntu 10.04.2 LTS > Release: 10.04 > Codename: lucid > > otherwise cat /etc/*release* > On my system, the one I'm compiling on, I get: $ lsb_release -a No LSB modules are available. Distributor ID: Ubuntu Description: Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS Release: 10.04 Codename: lucid On the main server I just get: $ lsb_release -a -jailshell: lsb_release: command not found
