Tom Quarendon wrote: >> Can't you just link statically? Then it's just a matter of being >> syscall compatible. > > Many issues with linking statically. Product is too big, and is > architected as seperate shared libraries, so can't link libstdc++ > statically with each one. Right. In general, linking statically on Linux is a really bad idea. >> Here's a tip, go grab yourself VMware or Sun's VM, then make a slew of >> VMs and install the distros you want in those. That way you don't >> need an actual box for each OS and you can build it natively. If what >> you are doing is professional and not just some hobby project you >> should just do it properly from the get-go. > > The point is that I'm trying to work out what "properly" means. We do > have a bunch of vmware boxes. That's how I know that it doesn't work > when we build on our build machine and try and run it on Centos4. So, let me see. You have a Centos4 machine that you could use to build (indeed, you need such a machine to do the testing) but for some reason you don't want to build on that box as well. > Your implication is that "properly" means building a version for Centos4 > on Centos4, a version for linux distro x on linux distro x etc etc. This > isn't in any way obvious, and isn't how things work for Windows, or > indeed Solaris, AIX, zSeries. I've already explained backwards compatibility and how it works on Linux. The question, Tom, is this: do you want help, or do you want to argue? Andrew.
