[sldev] Re: ETA for 1.20 source and supporting archives on the wiki?

[Robin Cornelius]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Soft <soft at lindenlab.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Carsten Juttner <carjay at gmx.net> wrote:
>  > Robin Cornelius wrote:
>  >
>  > > The only thing i can think of for your problem is that your gcc and your
>  > > boost libraries don't match.
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>  >  I built against the system boost libs, too and also only changed the
>  > libnames as Robin did and it gave me no trouble (on x86_64).
>  >
>  >  Could it be a bug in the linker triggered by static linking?
>
>  Possible. Poppy Linden spotted this:
>  http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16625
>
>  For now, I'll match up to the same compiler toolchain used to build
>  the released viewer, which is gcc (GCC) 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13)
>  (yes, I know!) and ensure the open source build is good there. If it's
>  all good, the only version I'm going to worry about past that is gcc
>  4.1, which carries the fix to the above issue. I'd like us to be more
>  ready for whenever the hell we get off Debian Sarge, anyway.

There is nothing wrong with tracking a stable distro ;-). Are you
going to bump up to etch, or possibly lenny if that goes stable first?
If possible try to track stable you only need to bump the build around
every 1 - 1.5 years so it should not be too painful?

I currently build my debs on etch but you have to watch out for the
mesa glx libraries as they will burn you on etch so this has forced me
to kind of specificy Lenny as minimum version.

Probably the last thing you want is tracking unfrozen testing or
unstable as your entire build may all *just stop* one day with out
warning, especially when people suddenly change gcc or libc etc, or it
may generate all sorts of other issues that are out of your control,
where as with a reasonable stable distro to build against you can
quickly identify any problem libs and backport anyway.

Robin