Tom Quarendon wrote: >> 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. > It's just the way we set our machines up. "as well" here is the key > phrase. We rather assumed that there would be no "as well". We don't > build one version of the windows product for windows 200, one for XP, > one for server 2003, one for Vista etc. We just build one. I'm just > suprised that this is the way that you have to build things for Linux. You only have to build one. That's been explained already. >>> 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. > > Well I obvisouly didn't understand it then. Most other systems appear to > have methods of allowing you to build on newer and run on older. This > doesn't appear to be the case on linux. If that is so, they fine, we'll > just build on older. Excellent. You don't need also to build on newer. > Still not clear though the affect that the compiler > has on this. If I compile on Centos4 with latest gcc 4.3.2, is that > backward compatible? And if I build on Centos4 how compatible is that > with SUSE for example? Sometimes you'll need to install older versions of libstdc++ etc. Distros often include compat- versions of such libraries. For example, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 includes compat-libstdc++-296 for old g++ 2.96 compiled packages. Andrew.
