Linux binaries

Linux binaries

[Duncan Hothersall]

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

Re: Linux binaries

[Taco Hoekwater]

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

Re: Linux binaries

[Hans Hagen]

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

Re: Linux binaries

[Taco Hoekwater]

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

Re: Linux binaries

[Tobias Burnus]

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.

Re: Linux binaries

[Hans Hagen]

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

Re: Linux binaries

[Taco Hoekwater]

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

Re: Linux binaries

[Hans Hagen]

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

Re: Linux binaries

[Duncan Hothersall]

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