Comment #30 on issue 15984 by rklloyd: /usr/local/lib/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not found http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=15984
In reply to comment 25 (byron.gehman), I am running 64-bit CentOS 5.4 and have Firefox 3.5.6, Thuderbird 3.0, Openoffice.org 3.1.1, Seamonkey 2.0, Flash 10.0.42.34 and even Google products like picasa 3.0 and Google Earth 5 working fine on my work desktops. Yes, Google *can and do* release binaries that work on CentOS 5, so I remain mystified as to why their dev team can't do so for their Chrome browser. I think the problem here is that, as has been admitted in this thread, Google have baselined their Linux dev environment on a bleeding edge Linux distro, which was very unwise. The irony is that CentOS 6 (to be based on Fedora 12 or 13 I believe) may indeed finally allow the Chrome binary to run out-of-the-box and Google seem to be happy to "support" that not-yet-released distro, but they won't support the latest CentOS (5) that's out right here and now! Quite inconsistent or what? What also concerns me is that if Google devs are misguided enough to follow bleeding edge distros, will they shift their dev environment again in 2010 or 2011, so that even CentOS 6 (or, say, pre-Ubuntu 9.X - think LTS releases) breaks at some point? They wouldn't ever dream of doing this for the Windows platform (i.e. release a binary that only works on Windows 7, since that's the bleeding edge equivalent on that platform), but they're quite happy to do it for Linux. -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue. You may adjust your issue notification preferences at: http://code.google.com/hosting/settings -- Automated mail from issue updates at http://crbug.com/ Subscription options: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-bugs
