On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:57:09AM -0600, Alan Mead wrote: > On 2/25/2016 11:39 PM, John Darrington wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 03:41:46PM -0600, Alan Mead wrote: > > > > This succeeded and in some quick testing psppire seems to work. > > Thanks! Is there any hope for more recent versions? > > > > On CentOS 6 I'm afraid not. > > > > We could backport some bugs I suppose and maintain a separate branch, > > if there was enough demand. > > > > Otherwise you should be looking to upgrade to CentOS 7. > > I installed Fedora 23 on an older machine, so I'll be on the bleeding > edge (or close to it). I haven't gotten around to trying to make the > latest PSPP, but there's a package for 0.8.5. > > I use some Linux software that was distributed (by a developer who > learned to code on Windows) as both source code and binaries where the > binary was statically linked. Much like a Window executable, it still > runs years after the author compiled it. (In fact, gcc and SWIG have > moved on and the source no longer compiles.) > > Other than (a) "that's not the way we do it" and (b) the issues of > trusting binaries, what's the downside of distributing a statically > linked PSPP? Wouldn't that allow me to run the latest PSPP on my CentOS > 6 machine?
Yes. I'm not personally a fan of distributing statically linked binaries because it means that I have to track down a lot of source code in case someone asks for it. But it makes perfect sense for personal use. _______________________________________________ Pspp-users mailing list Pspp-users@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-users
