--- On Fri, 9/11/09, Frank Mehnert <[email protected]> wrote: > If you cannot use one of these provided packages then you > indeed have to use on of the generic .run packages. These > packages are the fallback and therefore they are compiled > on an older Linux distribution (RHEL4) with gcc-3.4 which > is a still quite nice compiler.
Again, that is pretty ancient (RHEL *5* has been out for two and a half years now). > Compiling the generic packages on an older distribution > increases the probability that these packages run on a > not directly supported Linux distribution. I am going to disagree with that. I don't know of any current distribution that still uses gcc 3. > Why don't you just install one of the generic packages and > try if it works for you? I strongly believe they do > because the glibc is backward compatible. I have tried that, and it absolutely will not run (with complaints about missing libstdc++, because gcc 3 is not installed (and I don't have the authority to override policy to get it installed). I would happily try any of the builds created for specific distributions, but I don't find the idea of going through all of them in a trial and error mode very appealing. It would help if the toolchains used to build each of binaries were documented (like Opera does at: http://get.opera.com/pub/opera/linux/1000/final/en/i386/ - offering combinations of gcc 3 or 4, qt 3 or 4, and static or shared qt libraries). Again, I don't see why you can't make one more build of each release for something a little more modern. Surely, you won't keep building for gcc 3 forever. > Kind regards, Thank you for your reply. :) Nuzhna _______________________________________________ vbox-users mailing list [email protected] http://vbox.innotek.de/mailman/listinfo/vbox-users
