[SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

jacko · 2007-12-27 20:30:35

I will just write this hear in hopes that someone will maybe help, but I am sure no one will as I already know the response I will be getting, but in case someone else has the same problem, here is your solution. DO NOT use arch64 if u plan on doing anything but stare at your desktop. -sarcasim

I just got a note from the programmer of of the linux ETQW client and he seems to think my problem is arch related. He thinks it is a broken package, but as we all know the dev's won't help get 32 bit apps running on 64 bit arch so I guess I am screwed.

Its a shame really, the whole hardware/software bs. Force people to buy 64 bit hardware and then no one wants to ever support old outdated software. They just want you to run 32 bit OS irregardless of the hardware u have. That in my opinion is the wrong one, but what do I know? I am only the end user who is getting disgruntled over the fact that everyone wants to force us to use this and that. That's why I stopped using microsoft and joined linux, maybe that was a mistake too?

Anyway, here is the link to the ETQW community where I posted the thread and where TTimo responded and stated that he thought it was a bug report for arch. But, as I stated earlier, arch does not care to help get 32 bit apps running on 64 bit OS. So with that said, here is the outcome of this and the thread I posted in.

http://community.enemyterritory.com/for … post256727

if anyone knows how to ssh with gdb, please drop me the command or a link to a page so I can at least read it and maybe learn something from this experience. Also, will a 32 chroot run the program in 32 bit mode and fix my problem? Will this chroot tell me if its the 64 bit OS causing the problem if the game works or will I get same results unless I install the 32 bit OS? From my understanding the 32 bit chroot uses all the packages from the 32 bit release, so it should work, but in all honesty I am done wasting time. So, as much as I wanna play this game, it may be easier to boot into ubuntu then to setup a chroot? I am willing to listen to any advice from here.

Last edited by jacko (2007-12-28 05:45:40)

elliott · 2007-12-27 20:40:27

If you want a completely unbroken and reliable 64-bit system, use all 64-bit software, it is as simple as that. Don't blame the 64-bit OS for not working right with 32-bit applications, blame the application for not being 64-bit. If you absolutely have to run 32-bit software properly, you should be using a 32-bit OS.

iBertus · 2007-12-27 20:52:55

I agree with elliott. Most of use here either use lib32 from [community] or a chroot to run our necessary 32-bit applications. If you have tried the lib32 solution with ETQW and it didn't work, you should contact the maintainer of the package you think is broken. As these packages are maintained by the community and not the developers, you cannot blame the developers for any problems you may have. Are you sure the problem doesn't exist in 32-bit Arch? If it does the issue with Arch64 and lib32 packages could be an artifact of a similar issue with the offical package. You would then be able to get help from the Arch devs.

I would suggest you attempt to solve to problem and submit the fix to the package maintainer. This would be the typical way things work around here.

jacko · 2007-12-27 22:26:07

Read the link I posted, its not the package for the game, the game works just fine till it decides to hard lock the PC. The dev who ported the client to linux thinks its a purely arch problem. That is probably the case and as I stated it won't matter since they don't care about getting 32 bit apps to run on arch 64, that's their call, not mine.

No I am not sure it wouldn't work under 32 bit, because I have yet to try it and would like to know the best way to go about this. chroot 32 bit or waste my time and re-install arch for the fourth time, this time using a outdated 32 bit OS?

I am not blaming dev's, I am blaming the computer industry that forced me to purchase 64 bit compatible hardware. I paid good money for it and I should be able to use everything that it offers. Which arch 64 does that just fine, but none of the software that anyone wants to use is 64 bit. The end user gets the raw end of the deal and as such it looks like ( to the end user ) that no cares about the pockets of the people who are paying their bills. So sue me because I feel like I should get what I paid for.

I do not go out and pay $20 dollars for a hamburg and shouldn't have to be forced to pay high end money for 64 bit hardware when no one wants to develop software for it. Sry, that it burns my ass so much, but its annoying.

wuischke · 2007-12-27 22:49:58

To explain the gdb over ssh:

You need more than one computer. Start a ssh-server on the computer you use to play the game. When the game is frozen, login via ssh from another computer.
Now you can use ps to find out the pid of the game and start gdb. Use (gdb) attach [pid] to attach the process and normal gdb commands like bt or bt full to find out more about the problem.

BTW: glibc might actually be the source of the problem, because Arch uses 2.7 and Ubuntu most probably 2.6 or even 2.5, so there might be an incompatibility. Try downgrading lib32-glibc to the version Ubuntu uses and see if it works then.

lucke · 2007-12-27 22:56:26

Your attitude presented both here and on ET forum will surely help you solve your problems, indeed. -sarcasim

Last edited by lucke (2007-12-27 22:57:33)

elliott · 2007-12-27 23:04:48

No one forced you to buy 64 bit hardware.

jacko · 2007-12-27 23:40:57

wuischke wrote:

To explain the gdb over ssh:
You need more than one computer. Start a ssh-server on the computer you use to play the game. When the game is frozen, login via ssh from another computer.
Now you can use ps to find out the pid of the game and start gdb. Use (gdb) attach [pid] to attach the process and normal gdb commands like bt or bt full to find out more about the problem.
BTW: glibc might actually be the source of the problem, because Arch uses 2.7 and Ubuntu most probably 2.6 or even 2.5, so there might be an incompatibility. Try downgrading lib32-glibc to the version Ubuntu uses and see if it works then.

thank you, I will try it.

jacko · 2007-12-27 23:51:04

elliott wrote:

No one forced you to buy 64 bit hardware.

your right, I could have bought discontinued 32 bit hardware and then been complaining in two more years because of the lack of 32 bit support. I will concede the argument that no one pulled my leg.

brebs · 2007-12-28 00:10:15

Guys, stop turning this into some juvenile slagging-off match.

jacko, the video card driver (being a kernel module) can hang the PC. So confirm exactly which video card driver version you're using in the two distros.

Edit: Also see thread regarding "noflip", which I needed.

Last edited by brebs (2007-12-28 00:21:11)

jacko · 2007-12-28 00:45:31

brebs wrote:

Guys, stop turning this into some juvenile slagging-off match.
jacko, the video card driver (being a kernel module) can hang the PC. So confirm exactly which video card driver version you're using in the two distros.
Edit: Also see thread regarding "noflip", which I needed.

I am using the same driver version in both distro's, but its not gonna matter now. Somehow when downgrading glibc I must have overwrote the current glibc package for my arch 64 OS, because now I can't even open up a program, says 'file not found. No such file or directory'

does anyone have an idea on how to fix this? will I need to go back into ubuntu and chroot to this drive and reinstall base?

As of right now I am totally in a mess. Tough learning lesson I am going through here.

jacko · 2007-12-28 00:46:53

wuischke wrote:

To explain the gdb over ssh:
You need more than one computer. Start a ssh-server on the computer you use to play the game. When the game is frozen, login via ssh from another computer.
Now you can use ps to find out the pid of the game and start gdb. Use (gdb) attach [pid] to attach the process and normal gdb commands like bt or bt full to find out more about the problem.
BTW: glibc might actually be the source of the problem, because Arch uses 2.7 and Ubuntu most probably 2.6 or even 2.5, so there might be an incompatibility. Try downgrading lib32-glibc to the version Ubuntu uses and see if it works then.

thanks for explaining the ssh thing, to bad I only have one pc. sorry for wasting your time.

skottish · 2007-12-28 00:58:43

jacko wrote:

I am using the same driver version in both distro's, but its not gonna matter now. Somehow when downgrading glibc I must have overwrote the current glibc package for my arch 64 OS, because now I can't even open up a program, says 'file not found. No such file or directory'

I overwrote the 64 bit glibc with the 32 bit one one time. A simple (but hackish) solution is to download the correct glibc with a livecd to your harddrive, unpack it, then force install the files (copy over the 32 bit files). Your system will start again.

For future reference, the solution to overwriting libstdc++5 is much more elegant.

Last edited by skottish (2007-12-28 00:59:37)

jacko · 2007-12-28 01:10:42

skottish wrote:

jacko wrote:
I am using the same driver version in both distro's, but its not gonna matter now. Somehow when downgrading glibc I must have overwrote the current glibc package for my arch 64 OS, because now I can't even open up a program, says 'file not found. No such file or directory'
I overwrote the 64 bit glibc with the 32 bit one one time. A simple (but hackish) solution is to download the correct glibc with a livecd to your harddrive, unpack it, then force install the files (copy over the 32 bit files). Your system will start again.
For future reference, the solution to overwriting libstdc++5 is much more elegant.

ok, so let me get this straight? I can either use a LIVECD or another distro, like ubuntu I suppose to d/l and then manually overwrite all the files on my arch install with the files located in the file I d/l?

I don't wanna make anymore mistakes...

I only ask because if I reboot, arch is not gonna restart. I can already see this coming so I am just trying to save myself a headache.

Last edited by jacko (2007-12-28 01:11:39)

skottish · 2007-12-28 01:26:46

If you believe that you overwrote the 64 bit glibc with a 32 bit version then yes. If you're careful about what you do, you will not harm your system. But you have to make sure that you pull down the 64 bit version of glibc from a current Arch repo like:

http://mirrors.easynews.com/linux/archlinux/core/os/x86_64/glibc-2.7-7-x86_64.pkg.tar.gz

You'll need to use a live cd that will allow you permissions on your system hard drive(s). I keep a copy of Knoppix around just for this kind of thing. You'll have to download the file onto the hard drive in order to unpack it. Then simply copy each parent folder of the archive over the same in the root partition.

jacko · 2007-12-28 01:52:27

skottish wrote:

If you believe that you overwrote the 64 bit glibc with a 32 bit version then yes. If you're careful about what you do, you will not harm your system. But you have to make sure that you pull down the 64 bit version of glibc from a current Arch repo like:
http://mirrors.easynews.com/linux/archlinux/core/os/x86_64/glibc-2.7-7-x86_64.pkg.tar.gz
You'll need to use a live cd that will allow you permissions on your system hard drive(s). I keep a copy of Knoppix around just for this kind of thing. You'll have to download the file onto the hard drive in order to unpack it. Then simply copy each parent folder of the archive over the same in the root partition.

Thanks for your help, I went about it slightly different. I installed arch 64 this time from another distro following the wiki, so all the files and pacman.static was already setup for me in ubuntu.

So I did a

pacman.static -Sy base -r /newarch

following this guide as I did when I installed arch http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ins … ase_System and only installed glibc, the rest I just said no to upgrading, to save myself time d/l'ing all those files.

I presume I could have used

pacman.static -Sy glibc -r /newarch

but I used base instead to make sure I did it right. Wiki worked the first time so I assumed it would work the second time and it did. Thanks for the tip on how to re-install glibc.

Now, does anyone know how to downgrade lib32-glibc without overwriting my glibc for the 64 bit OS? No, I do not have it in the cache since this is a fresh install from about a week ago. the wiki suggest that I recompile it from source using a pkgbuild. It also stated that I would have to check the CVS to get the diff's to rebuild the package build for the version I needed. But, I am to stupid to figure that out on my own.

Last edited by jacko (2007-12-28 01:54:54)

skottish · 2007-12-28 02:16:51

jacko wrote:

Now, does anyone know how to downgrade lib32-glibc without overwriting my glibc for the 64 bit OS?

Honestly, there isn't a good way to downgrade glibc 32 bit or not in Arch. A simple query of lib32-glibc on my system yields a whole bunch of dependencies:

[skottish@localhost ~]$ pacman -Qi lib32-glibc
Name           : lib32-glibc
Version        : 2.7-7

... snip ...

Required By    : lib32-alsa-lib  lib32-expat  lib32-gcc-libs  lib32-libice  
                 lib32-libxau  lib32-libxcomposite  lib32-libxdamage  
                 lib32-libxdmcp  lib32-zlib  lib32-libjpeg  lib32-glib2  
                 lib32-libgpg-error  lib32-libtasn1  lib32-lzo2  lib32-ncurses  
                 lib32-readline  nspluginwrapper  
... snip...

And I don't have a major lib32 setup. If you really need this game to function, Arch may not be the best distro.

Last edited by skottish (2007-12-28 02:17:52)

jacko · 2007-12-28 02:24:36

If you really need this game to function, Arch may not be the best distro.

I don't really need it running on arch, but I would like to see it running on arch. I like arch linux a lot and do not wanna give it up for a game, therefor I won't. In fact if I thought I needed to play that bad I would be in ubuntu now running it, but I am determined to find a way to run it on arch64 so here I am. asking for help. Maybe one day I will be able to return the favor when I become more proficient with linux.

anyway, I found a package build for the lib32-glibc here. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-glibc/

but when I look at the package build I see its for i686. um, this does not make any sense to me at all, I thought lib32 packages where for 64 bit OS's to be backwards compatible? So why the need to have a package build for a 32 bit lib when u are running a 32 bit OS?

Can this package build be modified with the x86_64 directive and a link to the source of glibc 2.6 from gnu website?

skottish · 2007-12-28 03:41:15

In the file /etc/abs/abs.conf, change the SUPFILES array to:

SUPFILES=(arch extra !unstable community !testing)

The next time you run the abs command, all of the lib32 PKGBUILDS and supporting files from community will end up in /var/abs/community/lib32. You can work from those.

jacko · 2007-12-28 05:06:23

thank you so much wuischke and skottish, this is the most help I have had in a long time from any community on any forum.

Thanks a lot, even if it doesn't work, at least u have taught me a few tricks of the trade.

jacko · 2007-12-28 05:49:18

wuischke wrote:

BTW: glibc might actually be the source of the problem, because Arch uses 2.7 and Ubuntu most probably 2.6 or even 2.5, so there might be an incompatibility. Try downgrading lib32-glibc to the version Ubuntu uses and see if it works then.

Should I send money? Thank you so much for the suggestion. I figured it was a something stupid and sure enough it was. You hit the nail right on the head.

also to skottish, thanks for the tips on how to downgrade glibc, it worked like a charm once I checked the wiki for the website to where I could download the i686 pkgbuild of the lib32-glibc-2.6-2.

Actium · 2007-12-28 07:13:22

my first install of arch is about 1 month or so ago. when i found out ETQW ain't working, as it always crashed on startup with some ugly fault i can't remember stating stack references, i simply downgraded to arch32 (an yes, etqw works on arch32 ... despite some ugly, performance-sucking, scheduling bullshit, that can be avoided by manually setting the cpu affinity).

the problem is simple: i don't know even a single opensource project that doesn't support both x86 and x86_64 architectures, because they don't need to maximize their profit, as commercial software development studios have to. that's however the problem:
most profit = least work (and hence wages for workers) + most sells
hence developing the program for both architectures is out of the question (it would require major changes on clients for both windows (does etqw have a 64bit windows version, btw? dunno.) and linux as far as i suppose).
now let's consider, which architecure is more important: one that ain't forwards compatible (would be weird, anyway) and most spread or one that's actually backwards (should be ... depending on libs). that's kinda simple, isn't it?

arch's principles are - as far as i remeber - being cutting-edge, even at the cost of showing no mercy to outdated stuff. that'd be our reason for the lib32-packages being just developed supported by the community and hence maybe not of utmost quality (please don't slap me for that one, lib32-developing-community-guys. thx!).

progress always comes with some flaws and we probably got to live with that undoubtable fact (consider nuclear fission: kinda clean power if used peacefully, but kinda a weapon of mass destruction if used as ... year ... just that).

PS: if ne1 would like to join me playing etqw: add me as a friend (nick: actium).

Last edited by Actium (2007-12-28 07:14:13)

wuischke · 2007-12-28 08:15:03

Should I send money? Thank you so much for the suggestion.

Not to me, but if you're serious about wanting to send money for this little advice, please feel free to make a donation at amule.org.

Arch Linux

#1 2007-12-27 20:30:35

[SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#2 2007-12-27 20:40:27

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#3 2007-12-27 20:52:55

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#4 2007-12-27 22:26:07

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#5 2007-12-27 22:49:58

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#6 2007-12-27 22:56:26

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#7 2007-12-27 23:04:48

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#8 2007-12-27 23:40:57

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#9 2007-12-27 23:51:04

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#10 2007-12-28 00:10:15

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#11 2007-12-28 00:45:31

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#12 2007-12-28 00:46:53

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#13 2007-12-28 00:58:43

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#14 2007-12-28 01:10:42

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#15 2007-12-28 01:26:46

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#16 2007-12-28 01:52:27

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#17 2007-12-28 02:16:51

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#18 2007-12-28 02:24:36

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#19 2007-12-28 03:41:15

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#20 2007-12-28 05:06:23

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#21 2007-12-28 05:49:18

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#22 2007-12-28 07:13:22

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

#23 2007-12-28 08:15:03

Re: [SOLVED] Arch64 linux is broken, compared to ubuntu, YES!!!!

Board footer