Compiling under 5.x for 4.x releases?
Can it be done with a command-line switch to the compiler or gcc, or am I consigned to dual-booting? I know the libraries are there for runtime, but can you build executables for them? -- -- Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.netTired of spam at your company? LOOK HERE! http://childrens-justice.orgWorking for family and children's rights http://diversunion.org LOG IN AND GET YOUR TANK STICKERS TODAY! ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Compiling under 5.x for 4.x releases?
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Karl Denninger wrote: > Can it be done with a command-line switch to the compiler or gcc, or am I > consigned to dual-booting? You mean building apps linked against 4.X libs vs. 5.X? With some creative -L flags you might be able to get it to not use /usr/lib/libc* and use /usr/lib/compat/libc* instead, which has copies of certain 4.X libs in it. Let us know if you get it working :) > I know the libraries are there for runtime, but can you build executables > for them? The executables are the exact same format. -- Doug White| FreeBSD: The Power to Serve [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.FreeBSD.org ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Compiling under 5.x for 4.x releases?
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 09:43:01AM -0700, Doug White wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > Can it be done with a command-line switch to the compiler or gcc, or am I > > consigned to dual-booting? > > You mean building apps linked against 4.X libs vs. 5.X? With some creative > -L flags you might be able to get it to not use /usr/lib/libc* and use > /usr/lib/compat/libc* instead, which has copies of certain 4.X libs in it. > > Let us know if you get it working :) Will play with that one > > I know the libraries are there for runtime, but can you build executables > > for them? > > The executables are the exact same format. The problem is that I have a lot of users on the 4.x release(s) of the OS, and have binary apps that I'm supporting for them. Linking static is an option, but does ugly things to the file sizes. Thus, wondering if I can link the other way and still have it run on a 4.x box. I guess it depends on what the application is and what dependancies there are. -- -- Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.netTired of spam at your company? LOOK HERE! http://childrens-justice.orgWorking for family and children's rights http://diversunion.org LOG IN AND GET YOUR TANK STICKERS TODAY! ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Compiling under 5.x for 4.x releases?
In the last episode (Jun 14), Karl Denninger said: > On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 09:43:01AM -0700, Doug White wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > > > Can it be done with a command-line switch to the compiler or gcc, > > > or am I consigned to dual-booting? > > > > You mean building apps linked against 4.X libs vs. 5.X? With some > > creative -L flags you might be able to get it to not use > > /usr/lib/libc* and use /usr/lib/compat/libc* instead, which has > > copies of certain 4.X libs in it. > > > > Let us know if you get it working :) > > Will play with that one That won't work. The reason shared libraries get their versions bumped and the old ones move into compat is that the ABI changes. Unless you kept the headers for those old shlibs laying around someplace, gcc will compile programs using the ABI for the libs in /usr/lib. > The problem is that I have a lot of users on the 4.x release(s) of > the OS, and have binary apps that I'm supporting for them. Linking > static is an option, but does ugly things to the file sizes. That will break the first time a 5.0-compiled library decides to use a syscall not in 4.x. > Thus, wondering if I can link the other way and still have it run on > a 4.x box. I guess it depends on what the application is and what > dependancies there are. You will need to keep a 4.x box around (or possibly build a chrooted 4.x environment) to build older binaries. I believe until last month the Linux Mozilla binaries were built on a RedHat 6.2 system, to maximize the number of machines it would run on. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Compiling under 5.x for 4.x releases?
Thanks; I guess that means that for now I keep the production build machine is 4.8-STABLE, and I keep 5.x as a "play" environment until people move over. The fun will begin when migration begins in significant numbers, but I still need to support both! -- -- Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.netTired of spam at your company? LOOK HERE! http://childrens-justice.orgWorking for family and children's rights http://diversunion.org LOG IN AND GET YOUR TANK STICKERS TODAY! On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 12:28:11PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Jun 14), Karl Denninger said: > > On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 09:43:01AM -0700, Doug White wrote: > > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > > > > > Can it be done with a command-line switch to the compiler or gcc, > > > > or am I consigned to dual-booting? > > > > > > You mean building apps linked against 4.X libs vs. 5.X? With some > > > creative -L flags you might be able to get it to not use > > > /usr/lib/libc* and use /usr/lib/compat/libc* instead, which has > > > copies of certain 4.X libs in it. > > > > > > Let us know if you get it working :) > > > > Will play with that one > > That won't work. The reason shared libraries get their versions bumped > and the old ones move into compat is that the ABI changes. Unless you > kept the headers for those old shlibs laying around someplace, gcc will > compile programs using the ABI for the libs in /usr/lib. > > > The problem is that I have a lot of users on the 4.x release(s) of > > the OS, and have binary apps that I'm supporting for them. Linking > > static is an option, but does ugly things to the file sizes. > > That will break the first time a 5.0-compiled library decides to use a > syscall not in 4.x. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Compiling under 5.x for 4.x releases?
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Karl Denninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : Thanks; I guess that means that for now I keep the production build machine : is 4.8-STABLE, and I keep 5.x as a "play" environment until people move : over. I think, but am not positive, that 4.8-stable boxes can build tip of current again. Warner ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Compiling under 5.x for 4.x releases?
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:04:52PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Karl Denninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : Thanks; I guess that means that for now I keep the production build machine > : is 4.8-STABLE, and I keep 5.x as a "play" environment until people move > : over. > > I think, but am not positive, that 4.8-stable boxes can build tip of > current again. > Until recently, it was possible to cross-build 4.x on 5.x; and this only additionally required installing the Perl port. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software Ltd, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
