Hi Brandon, Thanks for your response and explanation. I wrote:

...

[For] GHC-compiled binaries... what are the exact requirements we need to communicate to our customers?

You wrote:

Ideally you would use `ldd` on binaries to determine other dynamic dependencies that must be communicated

ldd just says "not a dynamic executable". When run against ghc itself, ldd gives a list of 11 dynamic libraries, and for each of them the specific binary version of the library that it linked against on my own particular machine. Does the machine on which we run the GHC-compiled binary need every single one of these libraries in order to run? Here is the list of libraries - identical for both GHC 7.4.2 and GHC 7.6.3: linux-vdso.so.1 libncursesw.so.5 librt.so.1 libutil.so.1 libdl.so.2 libgmp.so.3 libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 libc.so.6 libtinfo.so.5 /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 Thanks, Yitz

Brandon Allbery wrote:

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Yitzchak Gale wrote:

...

ldd just says "not a dynamic executable".

o.O I don't think the ghc runtime uses dlopen() to get at gmp (and I'm not sure that would even work in a static binary). You may need to resort to strace to find out what's trying to pull in libgmp.so.whatever. 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).

I suspect the OP's exectuable is aleady being compiled static. For the webapp I'm currently working on I get: > ldd test-webapp linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007fffcdd91000) libpq.so.5 => /usr/lib/libpq.so.5 (0x00007f973e0a8000) libz.so.1 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libz.so.1 (0x00007f973de90000) librt.so.1 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/librt.so.1 (0x00007f973dc87000) libutil.so.1 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libutil.so.1 (0x00007f973da84000) libdl.so.2 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdl.so.2 (0x00007f973d880000) libpthread.so.0 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpthread.so.0 (0x00007f973d663000) libldap_r-2.4.so.2 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libldap_r-2.4.so.2 (0x00007f973d412000) liblber-2.4.so.2 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/liblber-2.4.so.2 (0x00007f973d203000) libgmp.so.10 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgmp.so.10 (0x00007f973cf8a000) libffi.so.6 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libffi.so.6 (0x00007f973cd82000) libm.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libm.so.6 (0x00007f973ca84000) libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007f973c6d7000) libssl.so.1.0.0 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libssl.so.1.0.0 (0x00007f973c479000) libcrypto.so.1.0.0 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.so.1.0.0 (0x00007f973c087000) libkrb5.so.3 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3 (0x00007f973bdb2000) libcom_err.so.2 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libcom_err.so.2 (0x00007f973bbae000) libgssapi_krb5.so.2 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2 (0x00007f973b96f000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f973e2f9000) libresolv.so.2 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2 (0x00007f973b757000) libsasl2.so.2 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsasl2.so.2 (0x00007f973b53c000) libgnutls.so.26 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgnutls.so.26 (0x00007f973b27c000) libgcrypt.so.11 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgcrypt.so.11 (0x00007f973affc000) libk5crypto.so.3 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3 (0x00007f973add3000) libkrb5support.so.0 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0 (0x00007f973abc9000) libkeyutils.so.1 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1 (0x00007f973a9c5000) libtasn1.so.3 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtasn1.so.3 (0x00007f973a7b3000) libp11-kit.so.0 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libp11-kit.so.0 (0x00007f973a593000) libgpg-error.so.0 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgpg-error.so.0 (0x00007f973a38e000) and libgmp is clearly listed in that. Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/

I suspect the OP's exectuable is already being compiled static.

...

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.

You built ghc yourself? And ran ldd on $bindir/ghc or $libdir/ghc-version ? Jens

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@haskell.org javascript:; http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users

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

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-li..., 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@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@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users