On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.c...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Nate Coraor <n...@bx.psu.edu> wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>> I just wanted to add my $0.02 USD to say that I mostly agree with this
>> - I have long used binaries precompiled by the tool author on Main,
>> especially for cases where, as you say, the compile-time dependency
>> list is large and painful. The only "gotcha" here is to make sure that
>> binaries support the oldest possible version of glibc that might be
>> installed on any of the Linux distributions and versions that we
>> support, and that no non-standard preinstalled libraries have been
>> pulled in during the build process.
>> --nate
> Good point about potential problems with glibc, and I guess any run
> time linked libraries which might be a different version or missing?
> Peter

Right, many things (especially using autoconf) will automatically link
against libraries if present and disable functionality if not.
Hopefully if we were returning to mostly vanilla tool test VMs in the
future, any problems would be easily discoverable.

Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all"
in your mail client.  To manage your subscriptions to this
and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:

To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at:

Reply via email to