On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 04:58:49PM +0200, Thomas Moschny wrote: > > (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.
Huh, did someone actually build a glibc with --enable-static-nss so that that would work? Cool. If so, I'm tempted to say just provide that one (at least until someone with an exotic nsswitch.conf complains; such people are *really* rare). (If it wasn't a special glibc built with --enable-static-nss, then it still requires glibc 2.4 at runtime, no?) BTW, the second should still say "x86" in its name somewhere. -- Nathaniel -- "But suppose I am not willing to claim that. For in fact pianos are heavy, and very few persons can carry a piano all by themselves." _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
