From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: bug#36276: Not found .so files in bundle made by guix pack Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:34:53 +0200 Message-ID: <87tvcdsxsy.fsf@elephly.net> References: <875zp357du.fsf@gnu.org> <98a2c388-3c5e-129e-4a0d-81b2e2d2860b@livet.me> <87zhmd1slz.fsf@gnu.org> <06e405a8-9157-f3bf-f983-26fc46679369@livet.me> <87imszhu6b.fsf@gnu.org> <70570cd6-1a97-8acc-6575-cf9a5329fc33@livet.me> <87sgry7puv.fsf@gnu.org> <48bbff6b-bd6f-b056-26d9-8c82ec3aba7d@livet.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55590) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hfjk3-0006AT-Et for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:36:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hfjk2-00040G-DF for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:36:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:45232) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hfjk2-000400-9A for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:36:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hfjk2-0005sz-4E for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:36:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-reply-to: <48bbff6b-bd6f-b056-26d9-8c82ec3aba7d@livet.me> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9as?= Livet Cc: 36276@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Andr=C3=A9as, >> What does =E2=80=9Cuname -r=E2=80=9D return on this CentOS machine? I= =E2=80=99m guessing it=E2=80=99s >> older than 3.16.0. >> 3.10.0-957.12.2.el7.x86_64 > > What a shame, this kernel was release in 2013 ! > > I start to think that our VM was not installed properly because > regular centos install seems to have a much more recent kernel... I=E2=80=99m afraid not. This is the kernel version on an arbitrary node ru= nning CentOS 7.4.1708: 3.10.0-693.21.1.el7.x86_64 RHEL 7.x won=E2=80=99t ever include any kernel version higher than 3.10.0. Until it goes EOL they=E2=80=99ll merely backport fixes and sometimes APIs = to what they call 3.10.0, but which won=E2=80=99t be anywhere close to what a vanilla 3.10.0 kernel provides. The same happened on RHEL 6, which still provides what they call 2.6.32, which is nothing like vanilla 2.6.32. Sometimes that heavily patched kernel will include an interface that later versions introduced and thus the kernel version checks will be inaccurate. We had this problem with the RHEL 6 kernel and the GNU C library, which is why we patched the glibc to make an exception for Linux version 2.6.32 (which only in its RHEL 6 variant provides the required interfaces). -- Ricardo