Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Thu 18 Sep 2014, 16:00
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » House Training » Users ( For the regulars )
Copied Mozilla from Puppy 0.8.6, got "file doesn't exis
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 1 of 1 [9 Posts]  
Author Message
mouldy


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 498

PostPosted: Sat 27 Aug 2005, 19:06    Post subject:  Copied Mozilla from Puppy 0.8.6, got "file doesn't exis  

Ok, messing around seeing if I could get versions of "light" and "mozilla 1.03" from Puppy 0.8.6 to run on Puppy 1.0.4

Copied files over expecting some dependencies might not be on newer puppy. However when I tried to run either of them, I would get error that bin file doesnt exist. Well, it exists and ROX can see it, rename it, etc. And yes I had correct and complete path to said file. Hard to diagnose when Puppy goes into denial.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Guest
Guest


PostPosted: Sat 27 Aug 2005, 22:00    Post subject:  

When did Barry migrate from uclibc to glibc ?

File not found usually means it can't find certain libs
Back to top
mouldy


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 498

PostPosted: Sun 28 Aug 2005, 12:59    Post subject:  

I thought it unlikely that they would run without error, but I got exactly the phrase "file doesnt exist" when I tried to run the binary. Never had that happen before unless I had the path wrong. Have gotten error that file couldnt be executed or error or one missing library or another. But this just says file doesnt exist like it cant find a trace of it. I mean if I make an executable blank file, it doesnt deny that it exists, it just hesitates a moment and brings up a new prompt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
GuestToo
Puppy Master

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 4078

PostPosted: Sun 28 Aug 2005, 21:55    Post subject:  

if you have an executable file that was compiled with a different version of gcc, the elf header might be different and it won't be recognized as an executable file
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mouldy


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 498

PostPosted: Mon 29 Aug 2005, 09:40    Post subject:  

If I try to run a non executable file even one labelled ".bin", I get "permission denied" error, not a "no such file or directory".

These copied files give me the "no such file or directory" response.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Guest
Guest


PostPosted: Mon 29 Aug 2005, 17:44    Post subject:  

From the 2004 puppy news around about 15 June 04

Quote:
Note that the new glibc-based mandrake-9.2-based Puppy will be version 0.9.0. Thus, the entire 0.8.* range is uClibc-based, and all Puppy versions up to 0.7.9 are Redhat-8.0-based.



This is why mozilla from 0.8.6 wont work and why you get the file not found, it's to do with not being able to find the uclibc libs
Back to top
mouldy


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 498

PostPosted: Tue 30 Aug 2005, 05:52    Post subject:  

Not to beat a dead horse, but if a file is not executable under Puppy, one gets a "permission denied" error. Dont believe me, try creating and running an empty file of whatever name or try running a txt file for example... If it is executable, but there are missing dependencies, the binary runs, but aborts giving name of first dependecy it cant find.

Only if it cant find the initial binary file I want it to run (usually due to mistake in path or file name) will it return "file or directory not found". I have experienced this in past with other software, but when I look, find its a typing error, stuck an extra letter in or something. But not this time.

I have played enough with Puppy and with getting software running under Puppy to find my experiences with trying to run this old Mozilla unusual. And I guess it will remain a mystery. Running old Mozilla itself wasnt that important to spend great amount of time on. Old Mozilla 1.0.3 running on the 0.8.6 Pup wasnt any faster to surf than modern Firefox though it loaded slightly faster. Had lot more limitations though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
BarryK
Puppy Master


Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 7047
Location: Perth, Western Australia

PostPosted: Tue 30 Aug 2005, 06:54    Post subject:  

uClibc has a very different shared library loading mechanism, so any executable compiled for uClibc is going to be totally broken trying to run it in the current Puppy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Guest
Guest


PostPosted: Tue 30 Aug 2005, 07:43    Post subject:  

That's it, it's more than likely it's the shared library loader that the system can't find as it's hardcoded into the executable by the linker
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 1 [9 Posts]  
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » House Training » Users ( For the regulars )
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0556s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0065s) ][ GZIP on ]