Re: missing info in the models tarballs.

On 3/5/07, a r <[email protected]> wrote:
> It certainly does not make sense to ship all required source code. If
> someone wants to compile gnucap, working out all the dependencies will
> not add much hassle. What is the problem, though, is work environment
> maintenance burden. Discrepancies may occur between machines,
> architectures, user settings, versions, compile-time settings etc. You
> cannot handle it without elaborate (and fragile) configuration scripts
> which add to complexity and run-time cost. A relocatable binary blob
> is not pretty but solves many problems.
>
> Obviously this is not needed for well defined environments (fresh
> installation of a particular distribution version or a livecd).

Thanks for cc'ing to the list, I didn't see that my mail was going private only.

I understand your issues with the gcc compiler. I have had several
issues with compiling on RHEL with an additional gcc with a different
release than the one on RHEL. Binary incompatibility between versions
makes 3rd party compiling a hassle.

So I would guess that gnucap would need to be compiled either with the
native RHEL gcc, or the compiler that compiled gnucap must be bundled
into gnucap file tree somewhere, which could be implemented as an
option to configure or make install, am I right?

-- 
Svenn