Bug 190259

Summary: ldd failure if glibc-2.4.90-3.i386 not installed in addition to glibc-2.4.90-3.x86_64
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: John Ellson <john.ellson>
Component: glibcAssignee: Jakub Jelinek <jakub>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Brian Brock <bbrock>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhide   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: 2.4.90-4 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-05-01 11:53:22 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
fix for /usr/bin/ldd none

Description John Ellson 2006-04-29 14:01:34 UTC 
Description of problem:
It is now possible to run a Desktop without any i386 rpms installed (thanks
Caolan), but /usr/bin/ldd fails to run correctly if the i386 version of glibc is
not present.   It fails to produce the correct error message if the file is not
an ELF binary.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
glibc-2.4.90-3.x86_64
glibc-common-2.4.90-3.x86_64

How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. touch x; chmod +x x
2. /usr/bin/ldd x
3.
  
Actual results:
/usr/bin/ldd: line 170: /lib/ld-linux.so.2: No such file or directory
ldd: /lib/ld-linux.so.2 exited with unknown exit code (127)

Expected results:
not a dynamic executable


Additional info:
Comment 1 John Ellson 2006-04-29 14:01:34 UTC 
Created attachment 128394 [details]
fix for /usr/bin/ldd
Comment 2 Ulrich Drepper 2006-04-30 16:00:39 UTC 
That patch is no good as you could have easily seen if you'd looked at the real
sources of the script.  I checked in a patch upstream.