* Linux binaries
@ 2005-11-28 8:48 Duncan Hothersall
2005-11-28 9:37 ` Taco Hoekwater
2005-11-28 10:27 ` Hans Hagen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Duncan Hothersall @ 2005-11-28 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
I just foolishly downloaded the 2005-11-16 linuxtex.zip minimal linux
distribution and copied it on top of my previous one, and I now discover
that the binaries are linked to a more recent version of glibc than I
have on my linux box. Eek.
I will clearly need to update the linux machine in due course, but does
anyone (a) know if the binaries from the previous zip will work as a
stop-gap, and (b) happen to have a copy of the previous linuxtex.zip (or
the binaries from it) available for download?
Thanks...
Duncan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux binaries
2005-11-28 8:48 Linux binaries Duncan Hothersall
@ 2005-11-28 9:37 ` Taco Hoekwater
2005-11-28 10:27 ` Hans Hagen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Taco Hoekwater @ 2005-11-28 9:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
Duncan Hothersall wrote:
> I just foolishly downloaded the 2005-11-16 linuxtex.zip minimal linux
> distribution and copied it on top of my previous one, and I now discover
> that the binaries are linked to a more recent version of glibc than I
> have on my linux box. Eek.
>
> I will clearly need to update the linux machine in due course, but does
> anyone (a) know if the binaries from the previous zip will work as a
> stop-gap, and (b) happen to have a copy of the previous linuxtex.zip (or
> the binaries from it) available for download?
Not on my mirror. Because of harddisk space constraints I do not keep
old versions of the big zips, sorry. Are all executables problematic,
or just pdfetex? If the latter, then you can compile it yourself from
the sources at:
http://sarovar.org/project/showfiles.php?group_id=106
If you (or someone else) does that, then please send those files to
Hans for inclusion. Those older files will run fine on my system, but
not the other way around, so I cannot provide Hans with the 'old'
executables.
Or just update your glibc runtime. I've done that a couple of times,
by just downloading the fresh RPM file(s) haven't had any trouble
with that since the libc5 days.
Cheers, Taco
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux binaries
2005-11-28 8:48 Linux binaries Duncan Hothersall
2005-11-28 9:37 ` Taco Hoekwater
@ 2005-11-28 10:27 ` Hans Hagen
2005-11-28 10:36 ` Taco Hoekwater
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Hans Hagen @ 2005-11-28 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
Duncan Hothersall wrote:
>I just foolishly downloaded the 2005-11-16 linuxtex.zip minimal linux
>distribution and copied it on top of my previous one, and I now discover
>that the binaries are linked to a more recent version of glibc than I
>have on my linux box. Eek.
>
>
indeed annoying (and depressing); it also means that you cannot copy an
old tree to a new linux installation (this is what i found out
recently); on windows, one does not have this problem (since it carries
previous versions of libraries); i don't know how sensitive macosx is
for updates
(maybe we should put a set of statically linked binaries someplace; a
kind of archive)
>I will clearly need to update the linux machine in due course, but does
>anyone (a) know if the binaries from the previous zip will work as a
>stop-gap, and (b) happen to have a copy of the previous linuxtex.zip (or
>the binaries from it) available for download?
>
>
>
yes, you can use the old binaries, no problem;
hm, a copy of previous binaries ... i can make a zip of an old tree
Hans
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux binaries
2005-11-28 10:27 ` Hans Hagen
@ 2005-11-28 10:36 ` Taco Hoekwater
2005-11-28 10:50 ` Tobias Burnus
2005-11-28 11:22 ` Hans Hagen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Taco Hoekwater @ 2005-11-28 10:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hans Hagen wrote:
> Duncan Hothersall wrote:
>
>> I just foolishly downloaded the 2005-11-16 linuxtex.zip minimal linux
>> distribution and copied it on top of my previous one, and I now discover
>> that the binaries are linked to a more recent version of glibc than I
>> have on my linux box. Eek.
>>
>>
> indeed annoying (and depressing); it also means that you cannot copy an
> old tree to a new linux installation (this is what i found out
> recently); on windows, one does not have this problem (since it carries
> previous versions of libraries); i don't know how sensitive macosx is
> for updates
It is precisely the same situation as Win98 refusing to run WinXP
binaries. (except it doesn't outright refuse that, it just makes
them crash unexpectedly and unexplainably)
But I grant that it is annoying ;-)
Greetings,
Taco
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux binaries
2005-11-28 10:36 ` Taco Hoekwater
@ 2005-11-28 10:50 ` Tobias Burnus
2005-11-28 10:58 ` Hans Hagen
2005-11-28 11:22 ` Hans Hagen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Tobias Burnus @ 2005-11-28 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hi,
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
>> indeed annoying (and depressing); it also means that you cannot copy
>> an old tree to a new linux installation (this is what i found out
>> recently); on windows, one does not have this problem (since it
>> carries previous versions of libraries); i don't know how sensitive
>> macosx is for updates
> It is precisely the same situation as Win98 refusing to run WinXP
> binaries. (except it doesn't outright refuse that, it just makes
> them crash unexpectedly and unexplainably)
Well, or Adobe Reader 7 refusing to install on Windows ME* and demanding
at least WinNT SP x or Win2000 SP 2, fortunally there is GhostScript to
print PDF files. (The PDF file didn't print with 6.0.)
Tobias
* I fully agree with most world (incl. Microsoft), that WinME is bad,
but to update Windows just for AR is a bit too much.
PS: That neither CorelDraw Linux 9/Linux (not anymore) nor CorelDraw
Windows via Wine (not yet) runs here on my (too modern) Linux, is also
annoying.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux binaries
2005-11-28 10:50 ` Tobias Burnus
@ 2005-11-28 10:58 ` Hans Hagen
2005-11-28 11:16 ` Taco Hoekwater
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Hans Hagen @ 2005-11-28 10:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Taco Hoekwater wrote:
>
>>> indeed annoying (and depressing); it also means that you cannot copy
>>> an old tree to a new linux installation (this is what i found out
>>> recently); on windows, one does not have this problem (since it
>>> carries previous versions of libraries); i don't know how sensitive
>>> macosx is for updates
>>
>> It is precisely the same situation as Win98 refusing to run WinXP
>> binaries. (except it doesn't outright refuse that, it just makes
>> them crash unexpectedly and unexplainably)
>
sure, but at least you know that 95|me and 2000|xp are two different
things, and now i have to get accustomed to the fact that each update of
suse gives me another new operating system (i wonder how it will feel
to install suse 34.2)
what puzzles me most is that since tex is not that demanding, it is
still so dependent (maybe only pdftex with its graphic libraries is a
problem)
> Well, or Adobe Reader 7 refusing to install on Windows ME* and
> demanding at least WinNT SP x or Win2000 SP 2, fortunally there is
> GhostScript to print PDF files. (The PDF file didn't print with 6.0.)
that's an adobe issue ... they don't care about older machines (same
with mac: they didn't even bother to provide proper support for a while
back); i must have a floppy with an acrobat 1.0 for msdos somewhere; it
actually gave a pretty good picture -)
Hans
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux binaries
2005-11-28 10:58 ` Hans Hagen
@ 2005-11-28 11:16 ` Taco Hoekwater
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Taco Hoekwater @ 2005-11-28 11:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hans Hagen wrote:
> what puzzles me most is that since tex is not that demanding, it is
> still so dependent (maybe only pdftex with its graphic libraries is a
> problem)
It is only dependent because it was created on my (brand new) machine.
If it was recompiled on an older machine, that executable would work
fine on my machine as well. But my binaries will not run on older
installations, and I am not going to *downgrade* my machine just so I
can create more portable binaries.
Cheers, Taco
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux binaries
2005-11-28 10:36 ` Taco Hoekwater
2005-11-28 10:50 ` Tobias Burnus
@ 2005-11-28 11:22 ` Hans Hagen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Hans Hagen @ 2005-11-28 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
>
>
> Hans Hagen wrote:
>
>> Duncan Hothersall wrote:
>>
>>> I just foolishly downloaded the 2005-11-16 linuxtex.zip minimal linux
>>> distribution and copied it on top of my previous one, and I now
>>> discover
>>> that the binaries are linked to a more recent version of glibc than I
>>> have on my linux box. Eek.
>>>
>>>
>> indeed annoying (and depressing); it also means that you cannot copy
>> an old tree to a new linux installation (this is what i found out
>> recently); on windows, one does not have this problem (since it
>> carries previous versions of libraries); i don't know how sensitive
>> macosx is for updates
>
>
> It is precisely the same situation as Win98 refusing to run WinXP
> binaries. (except it doesn't outright refuse that, it just makes
> them crash unexpectedly and unexplainably)
sure, but at least i can run old texs during the time-span that xp is
around (say a 5 year pseudo-platform stability compared to a 1-year for
linux); it makes me worry a bit; maybe the tex code base is just messed up
>
> But I grant that it is annoying ;-)
so we need to do something about it (some day -)
Hans
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux binaries
@ 2005-11-28 11:00 Duncan Hothersall
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Duncan Hothersall @ 2005-11-28 11:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hans wrote:
> yes, you can use the old binaries, no problem;
>
> hm, a copy of previous binaries ... i can make a zip of an old tree
That would be great, thanks!
Thanks Taco for the suggestions, I was exploring both of those in
parallel to hoping that someone had kept a copy of the old ones..
Thanks both.
Duncan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-11-28 11:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-11-28 8:48 Linux binaries Duncan Hothersall
2005-11-28 9:37 ` Taco Hoekwater
2005-11-28 10:27 ` Hans Hagen
2005-11-28 10:36 ` Taco Hoekwater
2005-11-28 10:50 ` Tobias Burnus
2005-11-28 10:58 ` Hans Hagen
2005-11-28 11:16 ` Taco Hoekwater
2005-11-28 11:22 ` Hans Hagen
2005-11-28 11:00 Duncan Hothersall
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).