On Friday 11 September 2009, Nuzhna Pomoshch wrote:
> --- 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).

That does not matter. RHEL/CentOS 4 is still supported.

> > 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.

So, what's the problem? There are still people out there
using older Linux distributions. For instance, Ubuntu LTS
Server is supported for 5 years ...

> > 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).

A missing libstdc++? If you are not able to install libstdc++6
then you neither will be able to install VirtualBox. I don't
know any recent distribution which does not ship this library.

> 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).

You still didn't mention which distribution you actually need
a package for.

> 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.

We provide additional packages if this is necessary. But we don't
just add additional packages on a single user demand because this
requires maintenance effort.

Kind regards,

Frank
-- 
Dr.-Ing. Frank Mehnert    Sun Microsystems, Inc.    www.sun.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

_______________________________________________
vbox-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://vbox.innotek.de/mailman/listinfo/vbox-users

Reply via email to