Linux deployment requirements for GHC-produced binaries

[Carter Schonwald]

NB: I'm told that building ghc with integer-simple doesn't  work on linux?!
(though the person who told me this may not have filed a ticket about this
on trac, so i'm not sure if its still an issue with ghc head or not )


On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald at gmail.com
> wrote:

> there seem to be two main approaches (which both require some testing)
>
> 1) build ghc with integer-simple
>
> 2) do some static linking tricks on your side, such as those described in
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/809794/use-both-static-and-dynamically-linked-libraries-in-gcc,
> this might entail that you need to know the precise OS / Distro a client is
> using before you give them a binary, but might make the process much
> simpler overall (despite its relative hackiness)
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Carter Schonwald <
> carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I remember Tim Dysinger telling me  some incantations needed to
>> statically link Gmp into the static binary before deployment.  I'll pester
>> him to re remember what's needed, but the point is there's a way.
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
>>
>>> > You may need to resort to
>>> > strace to find out what's trying to pull in libgmp.so.whatever.
>>>
>>> I don't know how to do that. And anyway, I don't have access to
>>> the machine on which the customer is reporting this. I do believe
>>> the report - there is no compilation going on here, they are
>>> only running our GHC-compiled binary. They know nothing
>>> about GHC (not even that we are using it).
>>>
>>> I was hoping that there would be some general knowledge about
>>> this so I could just pass it on to our customers. But I see everyone
>>> else is as surprised as I am about a supposedly static GHC-compiled
>>> binary requiring a libgmp.so to run.
>>>
>>> > Unless this
>>> > program is like xmonad and requires ghc behind the scenes to build
>>> > something, in which case you would indeed need everything that ghc
>>> requires
>>> > (and, of course, ghc itself).
>>>
>>> No definitely not.
>>>
>>> Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>>> >>> I suspect the OP's exectuable is already being compiled static.
>>>
>>> I compiled it static.
>>>
>>> Brandon Allbery wrote:
>>> >> Yes; which leaves the question of why it requires libgmp.so, and if
>>> it's
>>> >> static the only things I can think of are (a) it's using dlopen(), or
>>> (b)
>>> >> it's running something else that is not static and requires libgmp.so.
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> Could a dependent library be causing this? For example, this
>>> program depends on direct-sqlite, which in turn links to
>>> sqlite via FFI. It also depends on wai, which pulls in quite a few
>>> indirect dependencies.
>>>
>>> If so - how would I investigate this and get a complete list of
>>> the system libraries that customers are required to install
>>> as prerequisites?
>>>
>>> Jens Petersen wrote:
>>> > You built ghc yourself?
>>>
>>> No. It is the generic Linux binary tarball from GHC HQ.
>>>
>>> > And ran ldd on $bindir/ghc or  $libdir/ghc-version ?
>>>
>>> No, in $bindir that's just a shell script. It's in $libdir.
>>> The executable is ghc; ghc-version is a directory containing
>>> object files compiled from libraries.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yitz
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
>>> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/attachments/20131009/223344b4/attachment.html>