On 2010-05-17 08:46 +0200, Alexey Salmin wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Sven Joachim <svenj...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2010-05-15 11:04 +0200, Jan C. Nordholz wrote:
>>
>>>> [Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-lsb.so.3]
>>>
>>> That dynamic linker doesn't look right. A little googling shows that
>>> Redhat and Suse seem to be using that one now. A missing linker is,
>>> by the way, the only other reason for execve() to return ENOENT ("file
>>> not found") I know of - missing dependencies produce a different error.
>>>
>>> Anyway, Debian still has /lib/ld-linux.so.2 - you could try symlinking
>>> them, but I doubt it will work.
>>
>> Why not? Do you think that Redhat and Suse do something else? Anyway,
>> this symlink should be in the lsb-core package; it was added in 3.0.6
>> (see #326609š) but seems to have gone AWOL since then.
>
> So, it's a bug in lsb-core package?
Yes, the LSB mandates that /lib/ld-lsb.so.3 is the dynamic linker:
http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_4.0.0/LSB-Core-IA32/LSB-Core-IA32/baselib.html
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87zkzz3tmt....@turtle.gmx.de
