Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That's not an adequate error--but it should be simple to write a > > trivial "loader" which provides a more useful error. > > > > Thomas > > You get the same error as with any binary with unfullfillable > libraries. No, it's what you get when the loader can't be found (and it's a horrible error: it should print the name of the missing loader, not the executable). But if you want to avoid LSB complaince, then you have to pretend that amd64 is a totally different architecture. That requires *not* giving a normal 386 no-such-loader error, but instead something associated with "this binary is for a different architecture than the one you are running". When I run a 386 binary on my ppc Debian system, I get "cannot execute binary file" which is a whole lot more useful. If I use the file command I get something helpfully different, because it says it's an executable for a totally different processor. If you want to pretend that amd64 is not 386 and is a different architecture, then you can (in my opinion), avoid the LSB issue--but only if you do a sufficiently good job of making the "different architecture" work the way it should. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
