On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 15:10 -0500, David Cary Hart wrote: > On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 19:55 +0000, Mike Hearn wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:55:20 -0500, David Cary Hart wrote: > > > Sorry. I know as much about C as I do about B12. > > > > > > If I compile an rpm with gcc4, are there any problems associated with > > > installing that rpm on a machine running FC3 that I need to understand? > > > > Yes, this is a total swamp. I suggest you read this: > > > > http://autopackage.org/docs/devguide/ch07.html > > > > It's a little out of date, doesn't cover all the issues, is inaccurate in > > places etc but AFAIK it's the only documentation on this stuff that exists. > > That's a remarkably authoritative and credible document then -;) It's > also beyond my level of comprehension but I get the idea. It's worse > than I thought. If I'm reading this correctly then the reverse is also a > potential problem (using FC3 rpms in FC4 test 1). Then you're not really reading it correctly though; "build on older, run on newer" binary compatibility works _much_ better than the other way around (and it can certainly be argued that this is also much more important; if you want a binary to work on lots of platforms you just compile it on the oldest one you care about - it can be a chroot if everything is set up correctly, look around e.g. for Mach and maybe Red Hat ABE if you're looking into RHEL). As long as the compiler ABI is the same (basically this is pretty much always true for C and it's supposed to be true for the GCC 3.4->4.0 changeover for C++) and the right libraries are available there shouldn't be a problem. If there is a problem, that's a bug, provided that you do have the right library versions available. Cheers, Per -- Per Bjornsson <perbj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Applied Physics, Stanford University
