Never been a fan of static linking. Exploit in a library and you have to
rebuild everything that links against it.
That's one of the problems in the android world. Some library is found
to be vulnerable, it gets fixed, but a lot of apps on the play store
remain vulnerable simply because the vendor never submitted a rebuild.
That's also my beef with php composer, a lot of webapps lock the version
of the library they use and composer happily grabs the crusty old
version with its flaws.
But anyway, not suggesting a whole new OS just because of gcc and boost.
It's a trend I've been seeing where recently, more and more apps refuse
to build become one or more of the build dependencies is too old.
There's always a solution, but its nice when things just work.
On 02/25/2017 10:31 AM, Yan Li wrote:
We use GCC 6 from SoftwareCollection 6 and build our own Boost libraries with static linking. The result binaries work on all C7 instances just fine without the need to install any extra packages. The binary size isn't bloated too much by statically linking Boost, because many Boost functions are header templates anyway (but your mileage may vary).
Not sure if you have other dependencies but we never feel the need to upgrade the whole OS just to get a newer GCC and Boost.
Yan
On Feb 25, 2017, at 6:23 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 02/25/2017 02:20 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
Is there any blog that has information on a potential RHEL 8 release date?
boost in 7 is now too old for some things, in addition to gcc. There are
solutions in 7 to those issues but it's starting to feel like 6 felt
shortly before 7 came out, so I wonder if it is getting near to time.
I'm working on a major project bitcoin related and it would be
frustrating to deploy a bunch of CentOS 7 virtual machines only to have
8 come out fairly soon afterwards.
I have no real information on this either .. but one thing to think
about is that RHEL-7 is much less conservative with 'rebases' than the
older RHEL versions. (Case in point, major shifts in Gnome, KDE, Xorg,
etc.)
With containers and software collections, and with more aggressive
rebases in the Desktop space, I see the timelines becoming a little
longer between major versions.
Also, as others have said, I see no alpha or beta for RHEL-8 anywhere.
RHEL-5 does go EOL at the end of March 2017, so I guess a beta could
happen soon(ish).
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
