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
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
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
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
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
Hi, Taco Hoekwater wrote: 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.
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
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
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
participants (4)
-
Duncan Hothersall -
Hans Hagen -
Taco Hoekwater -
Tobias Burnus