On 16-8-2012 5:31, Marco van de Voort wrote:
It's not a FPC problem, it is a linux problem that apps are not
crossdistribution distributable. Creating a lot of drama if you see a
minor discrepancy here 6 months after release won't benefit anyone.
Just like we had a similar drama discussions
Hi,
On 16 August 2012 04:31, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
It's not a FPC problem, it is a linux problem that apps are not
crossdistribution distributable.
My applications ARE all cross-dirstro capable. And they are damn good
at running on new and old distros. eg: I have compiled
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Marco van de Voort wrote:
If dynamic linking is so great, why do we constant, constantly have these
discussions and worse all these illadvised changes?
Because the problem is not in dynamic versus static.
We would have exactly the same discussions if they were
Hi,
On 16 August 2012 08:50, Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org wrote:
The list is endless. So yes, dynamically loading is a good thing.
Indeed. I much rather prefer dynamic linking.
So, what is the problem, and what started the whole discussion: the FPC team
(i.e. us) simply chose
Al 16/08/2012 9:50, En/na Michael Van Canneyt ha escrit:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Marco van de Voort wrote:
If dynamic linking is so great, why do we constant, constantly have these
discussions and worse all these illadvised changes?
Because the problem is not in dynamic versus static.
We
In our previous episode, Luca Olivetti said:
If dynamic linking is so great, why do we constant, constantly have these
discussions and worse all these illadvised changes?
Because the problem is not in dynamic versus static.
We would have exactly the same discussions if they were
On 15-8-2012 13:49, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 13:32, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 15 August 2012 12:10, Jonas Maebe
jonas.maebe-3rqwkoel1alvsukgzv2...@public.gmane.org wrote:
The official way to get the unversioned symbolic links is to install the
-dev or
-devel package for
On 15-8-2012 15:59, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
On 15 August 2012 14:39, Jonas Maebe
jonas.maebe-3rqwkoel1alvsukgzv2...@public.gmane.org wrote:
FCL-DB uses dynamic linking by default, and looks for the unversioned
shared library. So what specific Firebird version is the FCL-DB coded
too?
On 15-8-2012 16:19, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
On 15-8-2012 15:59, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Umm, so ideally the ibconnection.pp unit should really be split into
various units with version numbers in their names. That way we will
know to which
Hi,
On 15 August 2012 15:32, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
And you can use the (Firebird/Interbase Services IIRC) API to get the
server version. I seem to remember Ludo's recent addition to FPC has
this functionality.
Yes, but you are jumping the gun here! My problem
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
On 15 August 2012 15:32, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
And you can use the (Firebird/Interbase Services IIRC) API to get the
server version. I seem to remember Ludo's recent addition to FPC has
this functionality.
On 15 Aug 2012, at 17:19, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
So why does FCL-DB look at the unversioned *.so by default? Wouldn't
it make more sense to change FCL-DB to look for libfbclient.so.2
instead? 2 being the latest major version of Firebird DB,
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
Hi,
On 15 August 2012 15:32, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com
wrote:
And you can use the (Firebird/Interbase Services IIRC) API to get the
server version. I seem to remember Ludo's recent addition to FPC has
this
Am 15.08.2012 17:02 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys graemeg.li...@gmail.com:
I had a quick look to see what other (non FPC based) application do.
FlameRobin has a dependency on libfbclient.so.2 (thus versioned .so
library). That's why it works without having to install the -devel
package.
Did you
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
I had a quick look to see what other (non FPC based) application do.
FlameRobin has a dependency on libfbclient.so.2 (thus versioned .so
library). That's why it works without having to install the -devel
package.
Is that a cross-distro binary?
Hi,
On 15 August 2012 19:02, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
Did you try ibase60dyn.initializeibase60('whatever.so'); in your dpr ?
I'm sure I can add that, and I'm sure it will work for my Firebird
connections, but other libraries I use don't have such functionality.
I'm trying to
On 15 August 2012 21:53, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
Did you look at the source/makefile or the binary? If the latter then this
is exactly what FPC (or more precisely the linker) does when you statically
link to a shared library
Yes, FlameRobin was statically linked. But
On 15 August 2012 22:10, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
Blend perfectly with the distro they are build for, but if changes occur
chances on recovery are slim.
Be more specific, what changes?
Dynamic linking and Static linking both have there pros and cons. Most
seem to prefer
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
I'm sure I can add that, and I'm sure it will work for my Firebird
connections, but other libraries I use don't have such functionality.
I'm trying to get to the bottom of
* Why must developers jump through hoops to get there DB apps to
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
Blend perfectly with the distro they are build for, but if changes occur
chances on recovery are slim.
Be more specific, what changes?
Change in naming, (either root (gds-fbclient) or version numbers) non
standard directories (the
20 matches
Mail list logo
