[fpc-pascal] Subject: Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris? And other questions

[Mark Morgan Lloyd]

Tomas Hajny wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 18:26, microcode at zoho.com wrote:
>> From: "Tomas Hajny"
>>
>>>> Do you guys plan on releasing the 2.6.0 version on Solaris and is there
>>>> a timeframe? Do you plan on continuing to support Solaris? I would be
>>>> interested in running both the Intel and SPARC versions if they come
>>>> available.
>>> I'm not the right one to answer this question but I believe that this
>>> depends mainly on availability of a maintainer for this operating
>>> system.
>>> You may try building the compiler (and RTL) for that platform and it may
>>> work well for you, but you may encounter some issues.
>> I didn't find a list of maintainers on the home page and I don't know how
>> Free Pascal development is organized. Hopefully the maintainer will speak
>> up
>> and in the meantime I will look at the build guide you mentioned further
>> on.
> 
> My point was that there has been no official / dedicated maintainer for
> that platform within the core team recently which is the reason why there
> are no official builds for Solaris for version 2.6.0. Mark Morgan Lloyd
> who already responded to your e-mail probably has the most experience with
> these targets at the moment.

My main role is being a thorn in the side of the core developers when 
something stops working :-) However I've previously offered to host a 
(not very fast) system here for compilation etc., and the offer stands.

>>>> Another question is on 2.6.0 on Linux. I cannot run the fp ide because
>>>> I
>>>> have glibc 2.9. The error message I get says
>>>> fp: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by fp)
>>>>
>>>> That is really a recent version! Even the latest Slackware from 1 year
>>>> ago only has glibc 2.13. Is this really needed or can it be built
>>>> against
>>>> my version of glibc?
>>> It should be possible to build against your version of glibc, but you'll
>>> probably have to do it yourself (or use FPC binaries provided by your
>>> distribution).
>> There are no binaries provided by my distribution. It's Slackware! But the
>> question was, was it really necessary to use such a recent glibc?
> 
> I'm not sure what's the supposed meaning of "It's Slackware!" in your
> e-mail. We do not actively track which Linux distributions support FPC
> directly.

His point was that Slackware has a far more limited range of binaries 
and libraries than do more popular distreaux such as Debian/Ubuntu, but 
it has its uses.

> Anyway, the particular glibc version was probably selected by the ld
> linker when compiling the binaries on the builder's machine.

I'll check 2.7.1 on SPARC Solaris 8, 10 and Slackware 12 over the next 
few days. I don't anticipate any problems, and in the interest of 
getting the OP (who hasn't provided us with a more genteel handle) going 
I could mail or FTP him tarballs as appropriate.

-- 
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]