[fossil-users] GLIBC_2.7 not found required by fossil

2010-12-18 Thread јеромонах Виталије
Hello I have installed fossil as cgi script on my web server and it works just fine :-) I wished to make small change to the fossil source and I have rebuild it from source. Everything was fine on my home computer. But when I deployed my own version of fossil executable on server and tried to exe

Re: [fossil-users] GLIBC_2.7 not found required by fossil

2010-12-18 Thread Kees Nuyt
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:05:43 +0100, you wrote: >Hello >I have installed fossil as cgi script on my web server and it works just >fine :-) > >I wished to make small change to the fossil source and I have rebuild it >from source. Everything was fine on my home computer. But when I >deployed my own v

Re: [fossil-users] GLIBC_2.7 not found required by fossil

2010-12-18 Thread Lluís Batlle i Rossell
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 02:05:43PM +0100, јеромонах Виталије wrote: > Hello > I have installed fossil as cgi script on my web server and it works just > fine :-) > > I wished to make small change to the fossil source and I have rebuild it > from source. Everything was fine on my home computer. But

Re: [fossil-users] GLIBC_2.7 not found required by fossil

2010-12-18 Thread јеромонах Виталије
Thanks for very fast reply I have build downloaded current trunk version of fossil sources. I have build it on my Ubuntu 10.10 system. it is working correctly on my Ubuntu 10.10, but on my server which is CentOS uname -a gives me Linux mangradac.gridsrv.net 2.6.16.33-xenU #2 SMP Tue Aug 21 17:57:

Re: [fossil-users] GLIBC_2.7 not found required by fossil

2010-12-18 Thread јеромонах Виталије
to: Lluís Batlle i Rossell Thanks for your advice I have `strip -s fossil` and now it is about 856k. I suppose that my home Ubuntu is quite newer version than the server is. How can I staticaly link fossil with glibc to avoid using (incompatible) system shared library? Vitalije

Re: [fossil-users] GLIBC_2.7 not found required by fossil

2010-12-18 Thread Lluís Batlle i Rossell
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 03:15:59PM +0100, јеромонах Виталије wrote: > to: Lluís Batlle i Rossell > Thanks for your advice > I have `strip -s fossil` and now it is about 856k. > > I suppose that my home Ubuntu is quite newer version than the server is. > > How can I staticaly link fossil with glib

Re: [fossil-users] GLIBC_2.7 not found required by fossil

2010-12-18 Thread јеромонах Виталије
to: Lluís Batlle i Rossell I build it with -static option added to LIB variable. Now it works but it's size is (even after strip) is 1.5M. A funny thing is that now when building I got the following warning: "Using 'gethostbyname' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared l

Re: [fossil-users] GLIBC_2.7 not found required by fossil

2010-12-18 Thread Stephan Beal
2010/12/18 јеромонах Виталије > I build it with -static option added to LIB variable. > Now it works but it's size is (even after strip) is 1.5M. > Static binaries have to include all linked-in functionality into the binary, which is why they are generally larger than dynamically linked binaries

Re: [fossil-users] GLIBC_2.7 not found required by fossil

2010-12-18 Thread Lluís Batlle i Rossell
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 05:23:45PM +0100, јеромонах Виталије wrote: > to: Lluís Batlle i Rossell > > I build it with -static option added to LIB variable. > Now it works but it's size is (even after strip) is 1.5M. > A funny thing is that now when building I got the following warning: Normal - now

Re: [fossil-users] GLIBC_2.7 not found required by fossil

2010-12-18 Thread Stephan Beal
2010/12/18 Lluís Batlle i Rossell > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 05:23:45PM +0100, јеромонах Виталије wrote: > > As I understand these warnings warn me that at runtime there must be > > installed glibc version that is used for linking. However, it seems > > that it is not needed or at least not the sa

[fossil-users] Please test the new "stash" command

2010-12-18 Thread Richard Hipp
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > Having incomplete changes in the tree is bad for things like bisect. > This was the most compelling argument in favor of "stash" that I found. And so I have now implemented a "stash" command for Fossil. It works pretty much like s

Re: [fossil-users] Please test the new "stash" command

2010-12-18 Thread Gour
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:45:39 -0500 >> "Richard" == Richard Hipp wrote: Dear Richard, Richard> Please test the stash and let me know about the problems you Richard> find. What to say than that I'm more than impressed with the development of Fossil. Richard> Once I get a bunch of you, gentle