Sven Barth wrote:
Am 09.05.2012 20:19, schrieb microc...@zoho.com:
There are no binaries provided by my distribution. It's Slackware! But
the question was, was it really necessary to use such a recent glibc?
It's a matter of what the libc version happens to be on the system that
was used to build libgdb, which is simply someone's personal machine.
Ok, but if that is what happened I would expect a lot of people not to be
able to run fp except maybe Fedora 16 or Gentoo users who always have the
latest stuff. I guess I am wrong though or you would already know
about it.
Maybe it would be better to build on a non-bleeding edge system so people
with older distros and pieces could still run everything? I very seldom
upgrade but maybe everybody else does. I try to find a good working setup
and then don't change it much. That's kind of why I was asking about
2.6.0
since it is the current release. I was planning on staying on that
until I
had a really good reason not to.
The text mode IDE "fp" is not used that much on Unix based systems thus
such problems regarding to recent/old libraries are not detected that
easily. On other systems like OS/2 (where "fp" is used more often) and
Windows there aren't such dependency problems.
Most users use a graphical IDE like Lazarus:
http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/
I agree. I harboured illusions at one point about being able to work out
how fp was put together and tracking down some of the issues (mostly
related to debugging, i.e. libgdb) but in practice I've gone with the
flow and started using Lazarus.
Having said which, I think I've got fp running on all the systems here
(with the possible exception of Solaris 8), and I've got libgdb running
with all of those (with the exception of ARM Linux).
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
