Thanks Richard & Brian for digging into this.

Lacking the Linux knowledge I tried working backwards from LC Server 9.0, 
trying 8.0 and 7.14 with no joy (internal server 500 error codes) - though 
whether the issues are down to glibc version dependencies is beyond me.

Earlier versions have less/no documentation in the packages and seem to only 
have 32-bit downloads available, which could introduce other issues (as the 
server is running 64-bit CentOS 6).

I think it’s time to stop flogging this particular dead horse and find an 
alternative dev environment pending target VPS OS upgrade, but thanks to all 
for trying.

…and that opens another can of worms that may warrant another thread or two - 
apologies in advance! :-)


> On 31 Jul 2018, at 17:31, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
> <> wrote:
> Keith Clarke wrote:
> > Thanks Martin (& Brian). It transpires that the VPS in question only
> > has CentOS 6 OS option, even if recreated - so the OS is a given for
> > the short term, pending replacement / upgrade discussions with the
> > hosting provider, which are not my call.
> >
> > One option to get underway might be to deploy an earlier version of LC
> > Server that can both:
> > Run happily under Linux with GLIBC at 2.12
> > Use LC9-compatible stacks - so I can develop on my desktop and deploy.
> >
> > I just hope these criteria aren’t mutually exclusive!
> Apparently glibc has a very conservative version numbering scheme - v2.12 was 
> from 2010:
> LC 9's native format is the same as with v8.1, so I checked the Release Notes 
> for that version and apparently it requires glibc 2.13 or later.
> Oddly, looking back to LC v7.0 the glibc required versions were *higher* than 
> they are in later versions - from the v7 release notes:
>  Requirements for 32-bit Intel/AMD:
>      glibc 2.3.6 or later
>  Requirements for 64-bit Intel/AMD:
>      glibc 2.15 or later
> Even odder is that support for the older 32-bit architecture requires a much 
> newer version (?).
> In fact, I went back as far as LC v4.5 and found the glibc required version 
> listed as "glibc 2.3.2 or later".
> This is confusing to me, so it seems we could benefit from some guidance from 
> Mark Waddingham or one of the Linux-savvy team members.
> I wonder how difficult it would be to recompile LC 9.0.1 with glibc 2.12...
> -- 
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World Systems
> Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
> ____________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:

use-livecode mailing list
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 

Reply via email to