[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Thread Index]

RE: [XaraXtreme-dev] libstdc++5 or 6

> This is another thing that depends on whether you are using a 
> static build or a dynamic build. If you are expecting a build 
> to work without an installer, installing libstdc++ v6 on a 
> system without it is going to be a pain. Even newer systems 
> have v5 on (i.e. even if they use v6 internally).

No they do not. Ubuntu does not ship with v5 and does ship with v6
(which is why presently XaraLX does not work out of the box on Ubuntu -
and no error message to tell users why - for reasons as described in our
previous conversation about the user friendliness of Linux desktop).

So the argument that v5 provides the widest compatibility is patently
not the case.  We're not even compatible with one of, perhaps the most
popular Linux distribution.

So what currently popular distros do not ship with v6?

It's more recent, it enables us to use a more modern compiler, it gets
us greater compatibility with the most popular Linux distributions. The
logic appears to suggest v6 is the one.

> When we are producing packages, we should thus compile with 
> 4.x, get faster code, and have a dependency on libstdc++ v6 
> which the distro tools will sort out installing right.

Well exactly and we probably can't avoid going this route in the end
anyway, but right now we're not.

Does anyone know what happens on the Mac. It's unlikely to have
dependency problems like Linux, so how does it handle this?  Phil has
said it uses v6 (and GCC version 4 compilers) but this hasn't always
been the case. What happens on older versions of OSX?

We have to ship a binary that will work on older OSX versions. At least
10.3, perhaps 10.2 or earlier if we can, and that goes back to v3
compilers does it not?