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