[bf1942] BF2 server discussion

[Steven Hartland]

libstdc++ doesn't seem to be an issue. All the cod, mohaa, cod:uo
and ut2k4 all require libstdc++.so.5 which can be distributed separately
and is here:
http://icculus.org/updates/cod/gcc3-libs.tar.bz2

The bigger issue is the glibc version. Going above 2.2.5 and u prevent
core older distributions from running the binary such as debian and the
older redhat's. If this didn't have such a high user base it wouldn't be a
problem but it is still one of the biggest platforms out there.

Great news on the FreeBSD front there definitely seems to be a growing
use of it as the preferred OS for GSP's due to its excellent security record
and the issues surrounding Linux and its licences.
With the time frame your looking at I would say a 5x binary would be the
best to go with as with the imminent release of 5.3 the 5 branch should
become the stable branch ( or that's the plan :P ). The benefits of 5x are
considerable for game serving due to the much enhanced SMP core. We
have been using it since 5.0 and have never had any issues all our
*nix based games machines are running 5.X.


    Steve / K
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Fredriksson" <andreas.fredriksson at dice.se>
To: <bf1942 at icculus.org>
Sent: 30 September 2004 10:06
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.




================================================
This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. 

In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137
or return the E.mail to postmaster at multiplay.co.uk.