Hi René On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM, René Jansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> I installed the 32 bit fedora version on Centos - it complains about > libstdc++.so.6: version 'GLIBCXX_3.4.15' not found (required by > /usr/lib/ooRexx/librexxapi.so.4), I installed glibc separately with yum but > that did not help. We have found that on many of the Linux versions, the installer package needs to be built on the same Linux as it is to be installed on. This is true on Debian versions, SuSE versions, etc. I.e., a SuSE rpm built on SuSE 10 is required to install on SuSE 10 or 9, while a rpm built on SuSE 11 won't install on SuSE10. I don't know any way around that. One solution is for the user to build from source on his / her Linux. Obviously not a user friendly solution these days where the user may not have the required developer tools installed. However, the Linux build is well tested and if the user does have the developer tools installed, the build is easy and goes smoothly. The solution we have been using is to build as many specific Linux builds as possible. For 4.1.1, David has done quite a few Linux installers that I didn't get a chance to put on SourceForge yet. I will be doing that this evening. (Evening for me PST.) > The Windows 7 install is plagued by extreme nagging from the OS. First, it is > concluded that oorexx is not often downloaded and might harm the computer. > The choices are quitting the install, and erasing the installer. A separate > menu with otther choices must be accessed, and the choice one needs is 'toch > installeren' which boils down to 'install regardless' - slightly stronger > that 'install anyway'. This is true for a log of Windows software, even with big name companies. For instance, you will get these warnings installing the software for an Epson or a HP printer. The documentation tells you to just ignore the warnings. I've never seen a situation where I have to access a separate menu though. But, I would never choose to 'Download and Run' from SourceForge. I always download to my disk and then run the installer separately. > > After that, the install works flawless, but I am ticked off by the attempts > to dissuade people from using ooRexx. > > We have recent experiences with a proto-installer for NetRexx on Windows, and > it seems that a certificate for RexxLA might help both products here. Do we > know the most cost-efficient way to obtain this, and would these work across > all installers? A certificate for RexxLA would be an ideal solution. The certificate would work for both products and would work for both a NSIS installer or a MSI installer, and I'm pretty sure for any product that produces a Windows installation package. I believe a development certificate might be sufficient for NetRexx and ooRexx to get past the OS nags, which is cheaper. For a device driver, on Windows, you need a more expensive certificate. It has been some time since I've looked into this, and I may misremember the details, or the details may have changed. I'll look into it again. -- Mark Miesfeld ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d _______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
