Jonathan Wilson kirjoitti:
> Neither does Linux - by linking against a recent library you are
> *asking* for a binary that requires that library. If you understand
> that you might understand why everyone is saying you should build on
the
> lowest common denominator of the systems you're targetting.
>
> If you insist on shipping executables not just source then you have
to be
> prepared to make a bit more effort to make them distributable. You're
> aware of the problems, but seem to be resisting everyone's advice on
how
> to avoid them.
On windows, it is possible to build a binary using a compiler on
Windows XP
> that can then run on older versions of windows simply by not using
any features
> specific to the newest versions of windows XP (or by using
LoadLibrary and
> GetProcAddress to see if those features are available or not).
Can you do the same thing on linux?
The only prerequisite is a GCC & glibc & other required libraries
combination
which produces apps for Linux/XYZ instead of only for the Linux
version/distro
happened to be installed as the development platform... Simple solution
but not
generally liked by the Linux distributors.... Why? Otherwise this kind
of toolchain
would be always present in a Linux distro. Just like the tools on
Windoze are,
they are not only for WinXP or 2k or Win9x, but for Win32....
My habit is to produce everything for RHL7.3, or even for RHL6.2 although
working on newer Linuces. Then I have some hope that the binaries will run
also on newer RHLs, and hopefully also on SuSEs, Mandrakes and so on...
Surprisingly things like OpenOffice, Mozilla, Acrobat Reader etc. seem
to work,
so some companies really have these kind of "generic tools"....
