On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
> But they also use libstdc++, and that's a total nightmare, since it
> seems to rely on other libraries.  Bringing along a libstdc++.so just
> causes the load of that library to fail.

Most distributions do provide backwards-compatible versions of libstdc++;  
maybe if you got them to compile the copy they want to send out on an
older distribution (like rh7.3), it'd be more compatible across the board?

> I've been trying to get these guys to just statically compile the dang
> thing, but they don't seem to want to.  Is there anything we can do
> short of that to manage these problems with the libraries?  If things
> are this bad, how does ANYONE manage to distribute linux programs in
> binary?  [I know, it would be great if they would distribute source, but
> they won't...] Just avoid libstdc++?

In my experience, most binary software is either statically linked, or
linked against an old version of stdc++.

-- 
Nate Carlson <natecars at real-time.com>   | Phone : (952)943-8700
http://www.real-time.com                | Fax   : (952)943-8500


_______________________________________________
TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
Help beta test TCLUG's potential new home: http://plone.mn-linux.org
Got pictures for TCLUG? Beta test http://plone.mn-linux.org/gallery
tclug-list at mn-linux.org
https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list