29 Apr
2005
29 Apr
'05
2:34 p.m.
Le vendredi 29 avril 2005 à 15:47 +0200, Mario Lang a écrit :
Florian Schmidt <mista.tapas(a)gmx.net> writes:
Also, at one point you might consider using distribution tools like rpm
or deb. Public repositories routinely publish packages for sets of
distributions, so at least their contributors found packaging easier
than maintaining static binaries.
Of course it depends on your app but from what you've posted static is
not really fun to achieve here.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:38:24 +0200
Tom Szilagyi <tszilagyi(a)users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Depending on how the program works with input/output files,
a chrooted installation is probably even more robust. I've run into difficulties trying to compile
a statically linked
version due to problems with GTK, which apparently doesn't allow me to
statically link to it. I also don't really know how to get at
statically linking libc (however I didn't try very hard anyway, since
I already got stuck with GTK).
Hi,
i don't know much about statically linking either, but if it doesn't
work at all you might want to distribute the (shared) libs in your
package, and then use a script to startup the app which sets the
LD_LIBRARY_PATH to the dir which holds the libs from your package.