Unable to install FreeBASIC b/c of unexecutable binary file

rszrama · 08-28-2009, 10:09 PM

First time poster here, feeling a little frustrated by an install process. In short, I have an Ubuntu Intrepid slice from Slicehost on which I'm attempting to install FreeBASIC 0.20.0b. I've followed the install docs and browsed various threads on the FreeBASIC forums but feel like I have a lower-level problem than just not running the install script properly. Here's why...

The install script fails when trying to ascertain the version I'm installing. The lines it fails on are attempting to execute a file called fbc with the -version parameter. The output at that time is:

Code:

./install.sh: 119: ./fbc: not found

I thought... interesting, because when I ls, I see fbc right there. So I figured I'd try ./fbc -version myself and get the following:

Code:

-bash: ./fbc: No such file or directory

I looked for similar threads on the forums here and saw people asking for the results of "file (filename)" and "ls -lb (filename)"...

file fbc:

Code:

fbc: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.2.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped

ls -lb fbc:

Code:

-rwxr-xr-x 1 myuser myuser 1418304 Aug 10  2008 fbc

fwiw, I know others have installed FreeBASIC on Ubuntu, as I've referenced threads like the following (and tried to use this script only modified to grab the right file version):

http://www.freebasic.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7916

I'm quite the Linux newbie, and even then my experience is really in setting up Apache / PHP / MySQL and DNS. However, from what I understand, I'm observing the rules to execute this file properly. (i.e. case-sensitivity, permissions, trying ./fbc and the full filepath, and attempting to sudo it) There's just some element here that eludes my meager knowledge.

Any advice?

i92guboj · 08-28-2009, 10:25 PM

Is the "fbc" file included in the stock package, or is it generated during the compilation process?

Post the output of "ldd ./fbc", let's see if the linking is consistent.

rszrama · 08-29-2009, 09:19 AM

"fbc" is part of the .tar.gz you get when you download FB for Linux - it's precompiled. The results I get for "ldd ./fbc" are:

Code:

	not a dynamic executable

i92guboj · 08-29-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rszrama

"fbc" is part of the .tar.gz you get when you download FB for Linux - it's precompiled. The results I get for "ldd ./fbc" are:

Code:

	not a dynamic executable

This only makes it harder to diagnose. My guess is that this binary is either for a different architecture/OS or it links to a library that's not present in your system.

However, what does this return:

Code:

file fbc

Is it a recognizable file type?

If it's freely available, can you post a link to the exact tarball you downloaded so I can take a look myself?

rszrama · 08-29-2009, 10:43 AM

Thanks for the follow-up. The results of "file fbc" are above in the OP. The tarball is freely available from SourceForge through the link on this page:

http://www.freebasic.net/index.php/d...egory=bin&id=3

i92guboj · 08-29-2009, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rszrama

Thanks for the follow-up. The results of "file fbc" are above in the OP.

I see, sorry, forgot about that. However this makes the thing "interesting", file says that the file is a standard 32 bits ELF shared executable, but ldd tells us that it isn't. Something is obviously wrong here.

Quote:

The tarball is freely available from SourceForge through the link on this page:

http://www.freebasic.net/index.php/d...egory=bin&id=3

I'll check, thanks.

ps. I've downloaded and extracted that package, the fbc binary is executable and works without problem. I have no idea what your problem might be. If the file didn't exist neither "file" nor "ldd" would be able to parse it. I really can't understand this:

Code:

-bash: ./fbc: No such file or directory

You could check the disk with fsck, sometimes inexplicable things are due to some kind of subtle disk corruption.

rszrama · 08-30-2009, 09:33 PM

Hmm... so I attempted a "sudo fsck" and got the following scary message:

Code:

sck 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008)
e2fsck 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008)
/dev/sda1 is mounted.  

WARNING!!!  Running e2fsck on a mounted filesystem may cause
SEVERE filesystem damage.

Do you really want to continue (y/n)?

I said no, because severe filesystem damage sounds awful. :P

i92guboj · 08-31-2009, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rszrama

Hmm... so I attempted a "sudo fsck" and got the following scary message:

Code:

sck 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008)
e2fsck 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008)
/dev/sda1 is mounted.  

WARNING!!!  Running e2fsck on a mounted filesystem may cause
SEVERE filesystem damage.

Do you really want to continue (y/n)?

I said no, because severe filesystem damage sounds awful. :P

Yes, it sounds so. You can't run fsck on a volume that's mounted r/w. Boot from a livecd to do the checks.

rszrama · 08-31-2009, 12:09 PM

Bummer. This is actually a VPS I have at Slicehost, so booting from a CD isn't an option. I suppose I could always backup and wipe the server if need be. Is there any way to confirm this is more than just a potential problem before doing so?

i92guboj · 08-31-2009, 12:14 PM

I have absolutely no way to know if that's indeed the problem. It's just one possibility that might very well not be.

If it's a hired vps you should rather contact their techs and see what they can do about it.

rszrama · 08-31-2009, 12:53 PM

Alrighty - I'll get in touch with them and see what happens from there. Thanks for sticking with me so long!

audragon · 05-16-2011, 09:20 PM

I had the same problem using Ubuntu Natty and FreeBasic 0.21.1.

I extracted the tar file to my /home directory using peazip (linux version-note: peazip is open source) and renamed it the freebasic to save typing in terminal (using the gui). The result was that FreeBasic would not install. Same message install-standalone.sh not found!!!

I then re-extracted the tar file using Ubuntu default unzip program, but did not rename it. And it installed first time in terminal without errors.

This is strange... Or maybe I have been using Windows for too long. I am new to Linux - 10 days now!