[bf1942] BF2 server discussion

[Kevin Lockitt]

Agreed. #2 would solve a lot of problems if you can swing it past the
lawyers. Otherwise, #1 dynamic link. 

>what is the minimum ABI version I can sensibly require for this product?

I don't think you're likely to get past LIBSTDC++ 3.1.0 with the Debian
folk. :)

Kevin Lockitt

kevlar at blackbagops.com
www.blackbagops.com





-----Original Message-----
From: Kingsley Foreman [mailto:kingsley at internode.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, 30 September 2004 7:28 PM
To: bf1942 at icculus.org
Subject: Re: [bf1942] BF2 server discussion


well hl2 has pretty much stoped supporting old versions of linux also.

so I vote 1.

let old linux die...

Kingsley


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Fredriksson" <andreas.fredriksson at dice.se>
To: <bf1942 at icculus.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 6:36 PM
Subject: [bf1942] BF2 server discussion


> 
> Hey guys,
> I'm going over the linkage problems again with the Battlefield 2 
> server.
> 
> I thought maybe we could have this discussion now rather than at ship
> :-)
> 
> I would like to maintain only one binary this time; so the following 
> alternatives are available for the linux release:
> 
> 1) Ship with a dynamically linked version and require libstdc++ >= 
> some recent version.
> 
> Pros: Simple turnaround for releases (this is what I'm developing on)
> Cons: Reduces backwards compatibility
> 
> 2) Ship with dynamically linked version and provide libraries so that 
> you can set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to the "compat" directory provided with 
> BF2.
> 
> Pros: Similar to #1.
> Cons: License considerations for shipping gcc shared objects.
> 
> 3) Link statically.
> 
> Pros: Easy.
> Cons: Breaks horribly on many systems.
> 
> 4) Link on stone-age era machine to get libc right and link statically 
> with libstdc++.
> 
> Pros: Best compatibility.
> Cons: A pain to maintain and increases turnaround time. Also a 
> borderline legal case.
> 
> So the question to this list is; what is the minimum ABI version I can 
> sensibly require for this product? Remember that we're looking at a 
> 2005 release date. Supporting all the old Red Hats are a lot of pain.
> 
> I'm also doing an unsupported native FreeBSD build this time around; 
> currently based on 4.10-STABLE, would the version 5 series be a better 
> choice?
> 
> Comments and suggestions are welcome.
> 
> Andreas Fredriksson
> ==============================
> Programmer, Battlefield II
> 
> There are 10 types of people in the world -- those who understand 
> binary and those who don't.
> 
>