[Peeweelinux-devel] Re: Moving Peewee to the 2.4 series - suggestions ?

[Mark Meade]

Hi Delaney,

Thanks for your response.  Library (in)compatibilities were causing me some grief early
on, and I'm still trying to sort out all the details.

FWIW, the compatibility packages really helped.  I have a Redhat 7.2 system for
development, and using these packages allowed me to compile and link my applications
against the shared libraries used in the current release of Peewee Linux.  This, of
course, made my applications *much* smaller (no longer statically linked).

I'm not sure how it's done with Mandrake, but in Redhat 7.2 it was simply installing some
.rpm packages:

compat-glibc-6.2-2.1.3.2
compat-egcs-6.2-1.1.2.16
compat-libs-6.2-3
compat-libstdc++-6.2-2.9

After installing these packages, running a script called "i386-glibc21-linux-env.sh"
allowed me to link all my applications against glibc 2.1.x libraries.

Regards,

Mark

----- Original Message -----
From: <drowe@juptech.com>
To: <peeweelinux-devel@adis.on.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Peeweelinux-devel] Re: Moving Peewee to the 2.4 series - suggestions ?


> Hi Mark, sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
>
> To my knowledge, know that later versions do not offer any significant
> advantages over the newer libraries (except the obvious size savings).
>
> Currently our developer's are using Mandrake linux 8.1 - some initial
> reasons we were looking at later packages/libraries/kernels etc for peewee
> is that :
>
> 1) we wanted the live running environment to match the development
> environment, as closely as possible, rather than having to perform some
> weird configuration juggling to ensure all ~12 developers are working from
> the same base, and that that the base dev setup and live setup match
>
> As a note (I haven't looked into this yet ) some of the tools they use
> (e.g. GTK2) I would have thought would need the later libraries to run -
> if this is the case rather than mixing and matching libraries from
> different versions, we'd prefer to use the one set of libs.
>
> 2) The hardware guys want the USB support that the 2.4 kernel offers.
> While the 2.2 series can be patched to add USB support, that's (for
> reasons of their own) not the path the want to take.
>
>
> I had not heard of the glibc compatibility packages - they sound like they
> may be worth a look - thanks for the tip.
>
>
> I hope you can extract some sense from the above ramblings,
> I really need a coke right about now :)
>
> Kind Regards,
> Delaney
>