On 08/05/2011 20:42, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Spacen Jasset"<spacenjas...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iq69q1$1ack$1...@digitalmars.com...
It should work,but again is depends what your target platform is. It's
quite important that - Even on windows. At the company I am now
contracting for we compile the software agents using visual studio 2003
because later versions do not let the agent work with windows 98. This is
not just a Linux phenomenon.
But at least you can still compile *on* XP+ and get the result to work on
98. And fairly easily (ie: Just use VS 2003). That sort of thing *might* be
true on Linux as well, but it seems to be either difficult or really
obscure. For instance, no one here seems to know:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1740277
Plus, there's the fact that Linux has not just different versions, but many
different distros, too. And the distros apperently tend to be somewhat
divergent in different things.
(But again, it's not like I'm saying "Windows kicks Linux's ass" or anything
like that.)
In any case centos 4.7 is a point release of 4.0 and as such there should
be no breaking libc changes.
Ah! Thanks, that's good to know. In fact, I was specifically wondering about
that, but I wasn't certain and didn't want to assume.
Yes, what you say it true. The most important thing usually is the glibc
version. In terms of distributions, yes they all have different
libraries installed, which can be a pain. For expat, we do infact
statically link that, and boost, and zlib. - but you can ship dlls
instead in that case, again of course, using some voodoo magic, RPATH
linker setting.
It was the case back in the day, that to install something on unix
systems, you would compile it, and in fact, sys admins would not install
binaries...
If you get stuck again, or need assistance, then you can look me up on
linkedin, facebook and send me a message. "Jason Spashett"
