Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: > So Florian and Michael, I would safely say a new binary > created with FPC (non-gui or fpGUI based) would run perfectly fine on > rather old Linux distros. >
Well, even more FPC itself. This is also why we ship .tar.gzs ;) I'am the first one to agree to ship only .tar.gz, I wouldn't create rpm/debs. But believe me, if we ship only .tar.gz, another person will pop up and write lengthy emails how important .debs and .rpms are. Luckily enough, we've people who do not write only emails but who create patches for deb/rpm building and who build those. Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: > On 4 May 2010 20:18, Sven Barth <pascaldra...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> Microsoft hadn't done this). Thus there is no real need to ship a 64 bit >> version of the compiler. > > This still seems a bit short-sighted to me. It now simply places the > burden on the developer to compile there own 64-bit version of FPC - No. Because there is no reason to do so which compensates the extra work to create a win64 native installer. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
