[ut2004] ./ut2004-bin: error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++.so.5

[Peter Hoff]

Ludwig Nussel wrote:
>Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
>  
>>>This is also a pain in the butt when people insist on getting you to
>>>setup UT2004 servers on old archaic debian stable based servers that
>>>still use gcc2 where this library isn't available.
>>>
>>>Maybe static'ing it could be the best option.
>>>      
>>1) It's LGPL, so static linking isn't an option.
>>2) Statically linking any part of glibc or libgcc is asking for trouble, 
>>as we've found in the past, and it doesn't guarantee binary 
>>compatibility anyhow, since parts of these libraries want to dlopen() 
>>and otherwise link against other system libraries and behave badly when 
>>they can't find what they want.
>>    
>
>Yes. Please don't link statically :-)
>
>  
>>[...]
>>And be sure to remember that breaking binary compatibility is a crappy 
>>thing to do even in a totally open source world; everyone needs to stop 
>>viewing that as the application developer's bug and start putting blame 
>>where it belongs.
>>    
>
>Well, it could be worse. The library soname was changed so your app
>at least does not use the wrong one and crash. So in this case it's
>just a missing library in the _default_ installation of a particular
>Linux distribution. Why did noone complain to Fedora while they
>where in beta? Apparently they are aware that there are programs
>linked against the old libstdc++ and therefore packaged it. Or did
>they omit the compat package from the default installation on
>purpose?
>
>cu
>Ludwig
>
>  
A lot of people don't need or want what's in the compat package. If it's 
extraneous in many cases, why leave it in?