Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:03:54 -0500 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: Alexander Sack <pisymbol@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why does adding /usr/lib32 to LD_LIBRARY_PATH break 64-bit binaries? Message-ID: <20081024030354.GA41283@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <3c0b01820810231931p2acbf426m7f1b94b73b466e5d@mail.gmail.com> References: <3c0b01820810231731s1b4d4659j7d1df8bf4abb229c@mail.gmail.com> <86hc72x0nx.fsf@ds4.des.no> <86d4hqwzur.fsf@ds4.des.no> <3c0b01820810231848r3e3e297cl3dc9bf1d0edcd588@mail.gmail.com> <20081023220949.7f304bbb@kan.dnsalias.net> <3c0b01820810231931p2acbf426m7f1b94b73b466e5d@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Oct 23), Alexander Sack said: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com> wrote: > > LD_LIBRARY_PATH is for native 64bit rtld. If you want a specific > > path added for use by 32-bit ld-elf.so.1 only, use > > LD_32_LIBRARY_PATH. > > > > Said that, your problem is likely caused by the fact that there is > > no /lib32, only /usr/lib32. So if 64-bit library lives in /lib, > > your LD_LIBRARY_PATH will cause loader to find its 32-bit > > equivalent in /usr/lib32 first. > > > > Try LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/lib:/usr/lib:/usr/lib32:/usr/lib64 for better > > results. > > Yes I figured that out on my own but my question still exists, why > isn't /usr/lib similar in format to /usr/lib32 though with respect to > major numbers? Ever since the switch from static to dynamic-linked /bin and /sbin, some shared libraries are needed during the boot process. Those libraries live in /lib, and since there are no 32-bit binaries required to boot a 64-bit system, there is no need for a /lib32. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081024030354.GA41283>