On Wednesday 29 August 2007, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > A simpler solution than all this might be to just use one of the > standalone binaries from the web site: > http://monotone.ca/downloads/0.36/mtn-0.36-linux-x86.bz2 > http://monotone.ca/downloads/0.36/mtn-0.36-linux_2.6-static.bz2 > Just uncompress, rename to "mtn", make executable, and put somewhere > in your path, and they should work. > > (Why do we have two of these now? I can't tell which one I would > need or what the real difference is; do we expect that users can? It > would be better to just provide whichever single binary works on the > greatest variety of possible systems...)
Well, the first is linked statically to all libs but libc, and thus needs a glibc 2.4 at runtime, while the second is completely static, and only needs a system with a 2.6 kernel. So, in theory, the second would be the preferred binary, because it runs on a wider variety of possible systems. But for static binaries, NSS is limited, see http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/FAQ.html#s-2.22. Therefore, I'd suggest using the first binary, where possible :) -- Thomas Moschny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
