NB: I'm told that building ghc with integer-simple doesn't work on linux?! (though the person who told me this may not have filed a ticket about this on trac, so i'm not sure if its still an issue with ghc head or not )
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonw...@gmail.com > wrote: > there seem to be two main approaches (which both require some testing) > > 1) build ghc with integer-simple > > 2) do some static linking tricks on your side, such as those described in > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/809794/use-both-static-and-dynamically-linked-libraries-in-gcc, > this might entail that you need to know the precise OS / Distro a client is > using before you give them a binary, but might make the process much > simpler overall (despite its relative hackiness) > > > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Carter Schonwald < > carter.schonw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I remember Tim Dysinger telling me some incantations needed to >> statically link Gmp into the static binary before deployment. I'll pester >> him to re remember what's needed, but the point is there's a way. >> >> >> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, Yitzchak Gale wrote: >> >>> > You may need to resort to >>> > strace to find out what's trying to pull in libgmp.so.whatever. >>> >>> I don't know how to do that. And anyway, I don't have access to >>> the machine on which the customer is reporting this. I do believe >>> the report - there is no compilation going on here, they are >>> only running our GHC-compiled binary. They know nothing >>> about GHC (not even that we are using it). >>> >>> I was hoping that there would be some general knowledge about >>> this so I could just pass it on to our customers. But I see everyone >>> else is as surprised as I am about a supposedly static GHC-compiled >>> binary requiring a libgmp.so to run. >>> >>> > Unless this >>> > program is like xmonad and requires ghc behind the scenes to build >>> > something, in which case you would indeed need everything that ghc >>> requires >>> > (and, of course, ghc itself). >>> >>> No definitely not. >>> >>> Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: >>> >>> I suspect the OP's exectuable is already being compiled static. >>> >>> I compiled it static. >>> >>> Brandon Allbery wrote: >>> >> Yes; which leaves the question of why it requires libgmp.so, and if >>> it's >>> >> static the only things I can think of are (a) it's using dlopen(), or >>> (b) >>> >> it's running something else that is not static and requires libgmp.so. >>> >>> Right. >>> >>> Could a dependent library be causing this? For example, this >>> program depends on direct-sqlite, which in turn links to >>> sqlite via FFI. It also depends on wai, which pulls in quite a few >>> indirect dependencies. >>> >>> If so - how would I investigate this and get a complete list of >>> the system libraries that customers are required to install >>> as prerequisites? >>> >>> Jens Petersen wrote: >>> > You built ghc yourself? >>> >>> No. It is the generic Linux binary tarball from GHC HQ. >>> >>> > And ran ldd on $bindir/ghc or $libdir/ghc-version ? >>> >>> No, in $bindir that's just a shell script. It's in $libdir. >>> The executable is ghc; ghc-version is a directory containing >>> object files compiled from libraries. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Yitz >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list >>> Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org >>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
