[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Monotone-devel] Re: glibc 2.2. version?

From: Deliverable Mail
Subject: [Monotone-devel] Re: glibc 2.2. version?
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:58:32 -0500

Yes, yes, yes, yes!
Yes!  Static, please!  Just some, no need for extra care stuff, for
"linux" would be fine.  Darcs static is a godsend -- I got it before I
was interested enough to get a Haskell compiler and compile it.  And I
did compile _and_ run it, unlike monotone in C++.  So much for

C++ with multiple g++ versions, different .so's and mangling is a
piece of work.  A _lot_ of work.
I spend inordinate amount of time putting .o files and libs into
different places, setting paths, and getting things pack for various
g++ versions.  It's the major obstacle to monotone -- I can't even
_try_ it out!  (Is there an option to set --db=<smth> as default? 
What is the treatment of identical changes conflict?)

The problem is most likely with crypto++ build, which does build and
then fails validation, just like monotone buids and silently, um,
loudly fails to even create a db.  I reported the bug to Wei Dai. 
BTW, his distro doesn't even build into a separate dir -- had to make
a Makefile for that.  And it fails with all the g++'s I got.  It
doesn't even compile with good ol' 2.95.3.  I believe its flakiness is
a problem for monotone.  If monotone chose to use it, it better work
around/with it...


On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:54:16 +0100, Henry Nestler <address@hidden> wrote:
> Deliverable Mail wrote:
> > How about a static version then?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Alexy
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:57:15 -0800, Nathaniel Smith <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> > 
> >>On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:34:05PM -0500, Deliverable Mail wrote:
> >>
> >>>Can someone please precompile a glibc 2.2 binary for all those good
> >>>ol' linuxi out there?  I think the one available for download should
> >>>be marked as glibc 2.3.
> >>
> >>It's now so marked.  (No 2.2 system here to build on, though, sorry.)
> >>
> >>-- Nathaniel
> >>
> I have alltimes the same problem.
> Dan from have helped me and compiled a full static 
> binary, but only version 0.16. This works good on all my systems (SuSE 
> 7.1, 9.0, Fedora Core 2, Red Hat).
> Please, please, compile with full static!
> --
> Henry Nestler

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]