Uh, he could release the source and let people build it themselves. That
is honestly the only way to guarantee the code runs on your machine, to
compile it yourself.
Frankly, I think that is what the different distros are for, providing
binary packages that work with their mix of software and libs. They
*should* be doing the work of distributing the binaries.
I must say, though, that I've never really had an issue with getting
binaries to run on GNU/Linux or FreeBSD. I've always been able to
resolve the depency issues by reading the errors when a dynamically
linked application fails to link. The most trouble that I recall having
was with getting Java to run on a Slackware box, and that was a simple
matter of soft linking a couple of binaries from where Slackware puts
'em to where Red Hat would put them, and then running ld on a couple of
the Java binaries so that the link info would get updated.
Anyway, I know this isn't helpful but I'm starting to agree more and
more with RMS (and probably Maddog, too) the more that I deal with
binary only "software." I've recently adopted the motto that it isn't
software without source code, so I have little sympathy for the
difficulties that developers face getting their binary-only software to
work on different platforms.
Sorry for the polemic. I'll step down off of the soapbox, now.
I'd suggest to your developer that he actually consider running ld as
part of the post-install. That just might fix a lot of the problems.
Cheers,
Jason
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
