[svlug] Running 32-bit apps under 64-bit kernel
aland at softorchestra.com
Tue Jan 5 22:14:15 PST 2010
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Rick Moen wrote:
> Specifically, you need to be able to run _binary_ 32-bit
> applications on x86_64-architecture Debian. That means it's
> not possible to tweak source and recompile to make it resolve
> its lib calls to /usr/lib32 or /usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu ,
> because the binary is already set to ask the dynamic linker
> for the bare sonames, resulting in them finding the distro's
> /usr/lib libs, which are for x86_64, hence incompatible,
> /usr/lib being a symlink to /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu or
> something like that. (That's my understanding. If wrong in
> some details, my apologies.)
That is exactly my problem, the Adobe compiled binary seems to
be looking in /usr/lib and libxml2.so.2 is the wrong
architecture. The error message it initially gives is bogus, it
says it can't find the library...after some looking I found it
in /usr/lib, took me a few minutes of scratching my head to
realize what was going on.
> If you want to read up on the background of this tale of woe, here are
> two relevant Web searches:
> debian biarch
> That'll find information about the original suggestion about
> how to deal with this problem systematically.
> debian multiarch
> That'll find information on what I believe is the officially
> approved approach that is being implemented by Debian and
> Ubuntu, which will get you links like these:
I will check these out.
> But you just want to run Acroread. Maybe you want just a simple IA32
> chroot: http://ornellas.apanela.com/dokuwiki/pub:multiarch
That could work, possibly.
> My understanding is that RHEL / CentOS / OpenSUSE / SLED/SLES / Gentoo
> all went with the biarch approach.
Hmmm...that's interesting...but Ubuntu must be like Debian since
Debian is the base, right?
I don't think I could give up Debian in favor of one of those
other OSs...nah...another approach would be to run VirtualBox
with a 32-bit VM, and mount from the host system.
> Incidentally, Acroread is why my DNS nameserver has since 2005 declared
> itself authoritative for the "remoteapproach.com" DNS domain, so that
> users of my DNS who execute Adobe Acrobat Reader v.7 and up aren't being
> spied on by Adobe's business partner Remote Approach. See:
That's interesting, I wasn't away of Adobe's deceiving tactics
> I don't know if Remote Approach is still in business, but, if Adobe's
> software has been known to spy on you in the past, the most reasonable
> expectation is that it should be expected to do so in the future --
> which is why I personally think Evince, xpdf, etc. are to be preferred
> (but choose your own poison, of course).
Evince works pretty good these days, and I would probably opt to
using it on Debian rather than switch to another linux distro.
Just my preference. But in the past I sometimes have problems
with locales in Evince, where docs are created to support a
variety of locales and the fonts don't work properly.
Thanks for the info, I need to digest and ponder on it.
Alan DuBoff - Software Orchestration
More information about the svlug