Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 13:03 +, Colin Watson wrote: On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 06:59:49PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: dpkg --add-architecture i386 apt-get update The installer doesn't AFAIK provide even the option to do this. (The i386/amd64 installer images might at least be usable as multiarch APT sources though.) So this is a usability regression in wheezy. I don't think I got round to updating apt-setup for the new --add-architecture scheme; but the apt-setup/multiarch template does exist and I think that at this point it would count as a bug-fix to make it work properly. Given that, you could at least boot the installer with apt-setup/multiarch=i386. Yes, please. I think that apt-setup/multiarch=i386 should be the default on amd64; but I'm less sure that I could convince anyone that that deserves a freeze exception. I'm convinced, but I don't count. :-) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If you seem to know what you are doing, you'll be given more to do. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 06:59:49PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: dpkg --add-architecture i386 apt-get update The installer doesn't AFAIK provide even the option to do this. (The i386/amd64 installer images might at least be usable as multiarch APT sources though.) So this is a usability regression in wheezy. I don't think I got round to updating apt-setup for the new --add-architecture scheme; but the apt-setup/multiarch template does exist and I think that at this point it would count as a bug-fix to make it work properly. Given that, you could at least boot the installer with apt-setup/multiarch=i386. I think that apt-setup/multiarch=i386 should be the default on amd64; but I'm less sure that I could convince anyone that that deserves a freeze exception. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
Package: kernel-image Version: 3.2.0 severity: serious (kernel-image-3.2.0-4-amd64-di) Dear developers, 32-bit programs, such as FireFox refuse to work on Debian 7.0 64-bit (amd64). This is new fresh stock install from di-BETA4 Wheezy DVD. (KDE) The same works great on Debian 6.0 64-bit ! user@deb7vm:~/Downloads$ uname -a Linux deb7vm 3.2.0-4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.2.35-2 x86_64 GNU/Linux user@deb7vm:~/Downloads$ arch x86_64 32-bit user-space app -- execution FAILURE !!! user@deb7vm:~/Downloads$ file 32bit/firefox/firefox-bin 32bit/firefox/firefox-bin: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9, stripped user@deb7vm:~/Downloads$ 32bit/firefox/firefox-bin bash: 32bit/firefox/firefox-bin: No such file or directory 64-bit user-space app - WORKS ! user@deb7vm:~/Downloads$ file 64bit/firefox/firefox-bin 64bit/firefox/firefox-bin: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9, stripped user@deb7vm:~/Downloads$ 64bit/firefox/firefox-bin [programs WORKS] Firefox 64-bit taken from: http://mozilla.mirrors.tds.net/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest/linux-x86_64/en-US/firefox-17.0.1.tar.bz2 The 32-bit comes from mozilla.org home page. (it is the default) Please enable 32-bit user-space apps to work on 64-bit O.S. *by default*. There are tons of desktop 32-bit apps for Linux, that should *just work*. I have no clue if the problem is kernel or someplace else, so please forward this issue to the appropriate package team. The CLI output (saying file not found) is of no help either, and is very misleading. I am using amd64 Debian GNU/Linux 7.0, kernel 3.2. -- -Alexey Eromenko Technologov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
Control: reassign -1 general Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com writes: Package: kernel-image Version: 3.2.0 severity: serious (kernel-image-3.2.0-4-amd64-di) Dear developers, 32-bit programs, such as FireFox refuse to work on Debian 7.0 64-bit (amd64). This is new fresh stock install from di-BETA4 Wheezy DVD. (KDE) The same works great on Debian 6.0 64-bit ! This is because you do not have 32 bit libraries installed, you have to enable multi-arch: http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/HOWTO Meanwhile, I'm reassigning the issue to general, as it is not kernel related. -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
User error? Huh ? No ! This is a Debian Bug ! Debian clearly says: File does not exist, while in fact it DOES EXIST. This is a 100% proof of Debian bug. -- -Alexey Eromenko Technologov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
Please keep in mind, that I have wasted 4 hours of my personal time on this Debian bug, and do you think this is reasonable ? -- -Alexey Eromenko Technologov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
On 01/04/2013 01:02 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote: Please keep in mind, that I have wasted 4 hours of my personal time on this Debian bug, and do you think this is reasonable ? It all depends. How did you even install Firefox 32 bits? We don't have such a package in Debian. It's rebranded as iceweasel, because the mozilla foundation wanted it this way (it's complicated, so I will not go into details about why, though you can search on your favorite web search engine about it). And to reply to your question: Yes, it's reasonable to spend 4 hours of your personal time on a Debian bug. Hundreds of people are spending even more time than this on a daily basis in order to improve Debian. No, it's not reasonable to report you can't run Firefox 32 bits on a 64 bits arch Debian, when really, you'd better just do: apt-get install iceweasel and use your newly installed browser in 64 bits mode... Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: on a 64 bits arch Debian, when really, you'd better just do: apt-get install iceweasel and use your newly installed browser in 64 bits mode... Not, because my job requires the latest FireFox (latest-and-greatest). And the standard FireFox, which is 32-bits, should work. Debian should ship with at least basic 32-bit packages, for LSB dependency. (3rd party vendors code for 32-bit LSB) -- -Alexey Eromenko Technologov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com writes: User error? Huh ? No ! This is a Debian Bug ! Debian clearly says: File does not exist, while in fact it DOES EXIST. This is a 100% proof of Debian bug. That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader for a binary doesn't exist. I think that's been the case for as long as Linux has existed. It is really confusing the first time you run into it, and indeed I had to debug a problem due to that error just the other day. But it's how some rather low-level components of the system work. One could argue that it's a wishlist bug against the kernel, where I think one would have to add a new errno value just for this error so that it can be distinguished from the general ENOENT case. But, even in that case, this would have to be something changed upstream; it's not the sort of thing that Debian can carry a local patch for. Fiddling around with the error return codes of system calls in a single distribution is not a good idea. That sort of thing tends to have unforseen compatibility issues. So the short version is that, regardless, this is not a bug that Debian is going to fix specifically in Debian. If it changes upstream, obviously we and all the other distributions will pick up that change. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_. -- -Alexey Eromenko Technologov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: on a 64 bits arch Debian, when really, you'd better just do: apt-get install iceweasel and use your newly installed browser in 64 bits mode... Not, because my job requires the latest FireFox (latest-and-greatest). And the standard FireFox, which is 32-bits, should work. Debian should ship with at least basic 32-bit packages, for LSB dependency. (3rd party vendors code for 32-bit LSB) Btw, if you want the latest Nightly, try http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/ or latest Firefox, try http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest/ All of them are available under both 32bit and 64bit x86 architectures. -- Regards, Aron Xu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
On 01/04/2013 01:31 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: on a 64 bits arch Debian, when really, you'd better just do: apt-get install iceweasel and use your newly installed browser in 64 bits mode... Not, because my job requires the latest FireFox (latest-and-greatest). What you are looking for is: http://mozilla.debian.net/ It has the latest. (or if doesn't, it will in a week or so, Debian Developers behind this are very efficient) And the standard FireFox, which is 32-bits, should work. You still didn't answer my question as to how you installed it, so I can't tell. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com writes: User error? Huh ? It is, I'm afraid. No ! This is a Debian Bug ! No, it is not. Debian clearly says: File does not exist, while in fact it DOES EXIST. It does not. However, the file the message is referring to is not the file you think it refers to: it is missing the 32-bit dynamic linker, /lib32/ld-linux.so.2 (available in the package libc6-i386), not the firefox binary itself. The message is a bit confusing, indeed, but without a dynamic linker present, it's hard to do any better. This is a 100% proof of Debian bug. You installed a 32-bit application on a 64-bit system. That will only work if you also install the 32-bit supporting libraries, including the dynamic linker. This is not a bug in Debian. And no, installing 32-bit libraries by default would be a bad idea, for a multitude of reasons. -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com wrote: But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_. This does not mean you can't run 32bit application under a 64bit Debian installation, it's because the support is not added into default installation as the feature isn't considered stable in the Debian way. You can search for Multi-Arch for more details on this topic. You will be able to run most of the 32bit applications by installing the required 32bit libraries, and the error of File does not exist means some/all of the required 32bit libraries do not exist. I agree it is not a user-friendly error message which can cause misunderstanding, but that message should not be fixed by Debian as Russ has given the details. -- Regards, Aron Xu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com writes: But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_. Debian provides LSB compliance via the lsb set of packages. Not everyone wants to have all LSB packages installed or particularly cares about LSB compliance. If you do: aptitude install lsb will install it for you. This should also pull in 32-bit support on an amd64 architecture. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
Le jeudi, 3 janvier 2013 18.44:59, Alexey Eromenko a écrit : But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_. By the way: * Debian is not LSB-certified * ... but the lsb-* packages try to provide a working implementation. No work has been attempted to provide Multi-Arch lsb packages (besides lsb- release and lsb-base being Architecture: foreign). Patches are welcome to make Wheezy+1 more suitable to your needs. Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org wrote: release and lsb-base being Architecture: foreign). Patches are welcome to make Wheezy+1 more suitable to your needs. How about changing it from a kernel bug to tasksel feature ? I recommend: tasksel to install 32-bit libraries by default, if user chooses stock Desktop (KDE/GNOME/XFCE/...). This should solve the problem for most users. -- -Alexey Eromenko Technologov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
clone 697270 -1 retitle -1 misleading error message when ELF interpreter does not exist reassign -1 bash severity -1 normal merge -1 609882 retitle 697270 i386 multiarch not enabled and ia32-libs not installed by default on amd64 severity 697270 minor tags 697270 +wontfix thanks Hi Alexey, 2013-01-03 um 18:32:28 schrieb Russ Allbery: Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com writes: User error? Huh ? No ! This is a Debian Bug ! Debian clearly says: File does not exist, while in fact it DOES EXIST. This is a 100% proof of Debian bug. I guess it is bash telling you that. That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader for a binary doesn't exist. I think that's been the case for as long as Linux has existed. That's already reported as bug #609882. For the second part: most people won't need i386 libs on a amd64 system, so this is obviously a wontfix. You can still install ia32-libs if you need them and follow the instructions for enabling multiarch for i386. Greetings Timo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#609882: Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
Timo Weingärtner t...@tiwe.de writes: 2013-01-03 um 18:32:28 schrieb Russ Allbery: Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com writes: User error? Huh ? No ! This is a Debian Bug ! Debian clearly says: File does not exist, while in fact it DOES EXIST. This is a 100% proof of Debian bug. I guess it is bash telling you that. That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader for a binary doesn't exist. I think that's been the case for as long as Linux has existed. That's already reported as bug #609882. I think that's asking quite a lot of bash. Wouldn't it have to open the binary and parse the ELF headers, extracting the INTERP header, in order to verify that? Does it really make sense to encode understanding of ELF binary layout formats in bash? -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#609882: Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
Hallo Russ Allbery, 2013-01-03 um 19:26:46 schriebst Du: Timo Weingärtner t...@tiwe.de writes: 2013-01-03 um 18:32:28 schrieb Russ Allbery: Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com writes: User error? Huh ? No ! This is a Debian Bug ! Debian clearly says: File does not exist, while in fact it DOES EXIST. This is a 100% proof of Debian bug. I guess it is bash telling you that. That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader for a binary doesn't exist. I think that's been the case for as long as Linux has existed. That's already reported as bug #609882. I think that's asking quite a lot of bash. Wouldn't it have to open the binary and parse the ELF headers, extracting the INTERP header, in order to verify that? Does it really make sense to encode understanding of ELF binary layout formats in bash? As seen in strace bash already checks for existance of the script and the #!interpreter. So when execve threw a ENOENT (The file filename or a script or ELF interpreter does not exist, or a shared library needed for file or interpreter cannot be found.) it could at least say something like interpreter or libs not found, try ldd for debugging. Grüße Timo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#609882: Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:26:46AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader for a binary doesn't exist. I think that's been the case for as long as Linux has existed. That's already reported as bug #609882. I think that's asking quite a lot of bash. Wouldn't it have to open the binary and parse the ELF headers, extracting the INTERP header, in order to verify that? Does it really make sense to encode understanding of ELF binary layout formats in bash? No, it doesn't. Especially when binfmt_misc means you can get this error from an arbitrary number of file formats with arbitrary levels of interpreter nesting. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#609882: Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
Timo Weingärtner t...@tiwe.de writes: Hallo Russ Allbery, I think that's asking quite a lot of bash. Wouldn't it have to open the binary and parse the ELF headers, extracting the INTERP header, in order to verify that? Does it really make sense to encode understanding of ELF binary layout formats in bash? As seen in strace bash already checks for existance of the script and the #!interpreter. So when execve threw a ENOENT (The file filename or a script or ELF interpreter does not exist, or a shared library needed for file or interpreter cannot be found.) it could at least say something like interpreter or libs not found, try ldd for debugging. Hm, yes, I suppose that's true. There's a race condition when the binary is deleted between the ENOENT failure and the subsequent check, but apparently bash is already living with that for the shell script check. Okay, good point. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
On 01/03/2013 02:16 PM, Alexey Eromenko wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org wrote: release and lsb-base being Architecture: foreign). Patches are welcome to make Wheezy+1 more suitable to your needs. How about changing it from a kernel bug to tasksel feature ? I recommend: tasksel to install 32-bit libraries by default, if user chooses stock Desktop (KDE/GNOME/XFCE/...). This should solve the problem for most users. See http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/apbs04.html.en#preseed-pkgsel for selection of individual packages at install time by preseeding. Sounds like maybe it is a fit for your needs. Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 02:01:26AM +0800, Aron Xu wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com wrote: But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_. This does not mean you can't run 32bit application under a 64bit Debian installation, it's because the support is not added into default installation as the feature isn't considered stable in the Debian way. [...] In squeeze one could just run: apt-get install ia32-libs-gtk and most third-party i386 binaries would work. But in wheezy one must first run: dpkg --add-architecture i386 apt-get update The installer doesn't AFAIK provide even the option to do this. (The i386/amd64 installer images might at least be usable as multiarch APT sources though.) So this is a usability regression in wheezy. Further, since the ia32-libs-* metapackages are transitional, this is due to become even more difficult in jessie. I think it's a mistake to remove well-known and useful metapackages, and they should be retained. However they should probably be moved into tasksel once the installer is multiarch-aware. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. - Albert Camus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013, Alexey Eromenko wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org wrote: release and lsb-base being Architecture: foreign). Patches are welcome to make Wheezy+1 more suitable to your needs. How about changing it from a kernel bug to tasksel feature ? I recommend: tasksel to install 32-bit libraries by default, if user chooses stock Desktop (KDE/GNOME/XFCE/...). This should solve the problem for most users. This is actually a very good idea. Automatically generate the library subset of a task, teach tasksel to add the required arch tags, and make it as easy as a checkbox or a command line option to add most of the libraries you might ever need for a secondary arch. This could go a long way to make it less painful (if a _lot_ more wasteful of inodes and disk space) to deal with 32-bit non-debian applications. That said, for now, it is best to learn how to use the ldd utility to root out missing libraries for any binary. It *really* helps. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#609882: Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:26:46AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Debian clearly says: File does not exist, while in fact it DOES EXIST. This is a 100% proof of Debian bug. I guess it is bash telling you that. That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader for a binary doesn't exist. I think that's been the case for as long as Linux has existed. That's already reported as bug #609882. I think that's asking quite a lot of bash. Wouldn't it have to open the binary and parse the ELF headers, extracting the INTERP header, in order to verify that? Does it really make sense to encode understanding of ELF binary layout formats in bash? This was discussed on Dec 26 on #-devel, a Fedora patch (http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/bash.git/tree/bash-2.05a-interpreter.patch) was mentioned. Yes, it parses ELF headers. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
