[bf1942] BF2 server discussion
netadmin at michiganburbs.com
Thu Sep 30 12:46:26 EDT 2004
-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: Andreas Fredriksson [mailto:andreas.fredriksson at dice.se]
-> 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.
#2 should be just fine, and I don't think there's a legal prob there since the
objects are already in distribution.
Best news yet is BSD binaries. I agree with Steven & G8 that 5.x is the best
way to go.
More information about the Bf1942