pre built executable doesnt work

[streamtechteam]

Fedora 42

x64_86 cpu

error message :
exec: Failed to execute process './hexecute': The file exists and is executable. Check the interpreter or linker?

compiling from source works no problem

[streamtechteam]

i ran ldd and this is its result :
 ldd ./hexecute
linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ff0cb084000)
libwayland-client.so.0 => /lib64/libwayland-client.so.0 (0x00007ff0cb047000)
libwayland-egl.so.1 => /lib64/libwayland-egl.so.1 (0x00007ff0cb043000)
libEGL.so.1 => /lib64/libEGL.so.1 (0x00007ff0cb031000)
libGL.so.1 => /lib64/libGL.so.1 (0x00007ff0cafbd000)
libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x00007ff0caecd000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x00007ff0caec9000)
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007ff0cacd7000)
libffi.so.8 => /lib64/libffi.so.8 (0x00007ff0cacc7000)
libGLdispatch.so.0 => /lib64/libGLdispatch.so.0 (0x00007ff0cac4e000)
libGLX.so.0 => /lib64/libGLX.so.0 (0x00007ff0cac1c000)
libX11.so.6 => /lib64/libX11.so.6 (0x00007ff0caad5000)
libXext.so.6 => /lib64/libXext.so.6 (0x00007ff0caac1000)
/nix/store/qhw0sp183mqd04x5jp75981kwya64npv-glibc-2.40-66/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 => /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007ff0cb086000)
libxcb.so.1 => /lib64/libxcb.so.1 (0x00007ff0caa97000)
libXau.so.6 => /lib64/libXau.so.6 (0x00007ff0caa91000)

[m31-galaxy]

Thanks for the issue!

The problem has been addressed in #1 - I'll see if I can make a statically linked build to fix this.

[ProggerX]

@ThatOtherAndrew, I figured out how to make nix builds work on FHS distros
Just include this in postInstall:
patchelf --set-interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 $out/bin/hexecute

[mppbtw]

@ProggerX I still think it would be simpler to release binaries compiled for Nix and for non-Nix systems and let the user choose (which is what most projects do, if they even have a Nix binary) rather than compiling for Nix by default and instructing users to patch the binary. Patching also requires that the user has software installed to do the patching, which most distros don't ship by default.

[ProggerX]

@ProggerX I still think it would be simpler to release binaries compiled for Nix and for non-Nix systems and let the user choose (which is what most projects do, if they even have a Nix binary) rather than compiling for Nix by default and instructing users to patch the binary. Patching also requires that the user has software installed to do the patching, which most distros don't ship by default.

I understand your message, but patching is literally made in flake, user doesn't need to patch anything.

You can check https://github.com/proggerx/chipi-chapa/blob/master/flake.nix outputs for example

[m31-galaxy]

I agree with mppbtw - after reading up about Linux binaries patchelf seems a rather hacky solution that would also break the binary on NixOS distributions.

[ProggerX]

You don't hear me. I am talking about 2 different flake outputs. One is for nix systems, the other one is for FHS systems. Why create big pipelines when you can just build both with nix...

[mppbtw]

does this even matter? i mean as long as we are compiling for both targets, the only difference with using flakes is that setting up the nix environment in CI might delay the compilation by a few minutes for push. using separate CI pipelines could also make it slightly easier to publish releases as tags would be automatically uploaded with a binary

[csd4ni3l]

New install, had to patchelf on arch with niri. Now works, but i dont understand why it would build against nix libraries tbh. Or make 2 versions maybe?