RELEASE on March, 1st !!!

[duchier at ps.uni-sb.de]

"Christian Schulte" <schulte at imit.kth.se> writes:

> Packaging of the linux tarballs: the very idea of having these beasts is to
> link as much in statically as possible so as to have them a safe fallback
> whenever other packages such as rpms get you in trouble. I noticed, though,
> that in the version for 1.2.5 tk.exe is dynamically linked against a great
> stuff of things: in practice this meant for my students (using Mozart in a
> Constraint Programming Course here at KTH) this package was a no-go and they
> had to revert to 1.2.3. (We didn't try 1.2.4)

ahem... you did not report this problem :-)

My thinking was as follows: binary tarballs are just one type of
medium - static vs dynamic linking is a different dimension; a binary
tarball could be either.  The only binary tarball for 1.2.5 is clearly
labeled for redhat 8.0 i386.  Which, in principle, ought to mean that
you can drop it in a rh 8.0 installation.  The dynamic dependencies
are clearly listed in the README file.  What tarballs can be provided
is then more of a manpower issue (you may argue that I picked the
wrong kind to build by default, but it was the simpler one to
provide).  Of course, when creating statically linked distros, the
main question is: just how much can we link in statically / how much
do we want to.  Let's make sure that there is a simple configuration
option that actually does the job correctly (i.e. including for tk,
which, unless I am mistaken, hasn't been the case in a very long
while).

Cheers,

-- 
Denys Duchier - Équipe Calligramme - LORIA, Nancy, France