[bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09

Thu Apr 10 11:04:53 EDT 2003

Someone has to pull up front using new compilers, else the newer
versions just won't get mainstream. Even if it wasn't for the compile
problems I'd say it's time to catch up on the versions.

As for the "cutting edge" of GCC 3, I think it's been quite some time
now since the kick-off, and now that even a Distibution Like Slackware -
which has been *very* conservative about moving to the newest features
(think about still going on MySQL 3.23 even though there is a 4.x
stable, Apache 1.3 eventhough there is a 2.0 stable, in the past Kernel
2.2 as default even though there already was 2.4) - Had moved to GCC 3
as do several other "bigger" Dist's, I'd rather start talking about
moving the BSD linux emulator to the new GCC then holding back on this
binary.

-----Original Message-----
From: Fredriksson, Andreas [mailto:andreas.fredriksson at dice.se] 
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 4:46 PM
To: 'bf1942 at icculus.org '
Subject: RE: [bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09

Steve,

we could easily release a dynamic executable but I suspect that this
forum and my mailbox would be full of "It doesn't work!" emails from
people not using up-to-date libraries.

We are not using gcc3.x primarily for speed; it's simply required to
deal with our code in a resonable manner. Version 2 compiles several
things wrong and needs lots of workarounds which we cannot accept in our
codebase.

As machines out there are updated this will be less of a problem, but we
might need to release both dynamic and static executables in the
transition period.

I'll think something out, I hope :-)

Thanks for you input,
Andreas

-----Original Message-----
From: Killing
To: bf1942 at icculus.org
Sent: 4/10/2003 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09

I understand your comments but if it where the case that it didn't run
under FreeBSD you could well be cutting of a significant portion of the
community, ourselves included. We get virtually daily requests for
BF1942 servers and the lack of Linux / FreeBSD support combined missing
config / command line options is killing our ability to effectively run
the servers.

I would hence strongly be against a statically linked exe if this where
the case. In my experience the keeping up with the bleeding edge GCC
causes more issues that its worth. The extra performance gains are
usually just not worth it as they are either so slight or in a number of
cases negative.

    Steve / K

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fredriksson, Andreas" <andreas.fredriksson at dice.se>
To: <bf1942 at icculus.org>
Sent: 10 April 2003 15:06
Subject: RE: [bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09

Karl-Petter,

I'm completely aware what the linux emulation does and how it works
under FreeBSD.

Our current problem is with a dynamically linked binary under any
operating system since we are using the very latest GCC and the std C++
libraries that accompany it. I'd say most current Linux installations
couldn't run our binary dynamically linked because of this since they
are using older C++ library installations.

This is why we are probably going for static linkage for the next
release.

If this doesn't work on FreeBSD it isn't really a problem for us since
we are developing a Linux server binary firsthand--but as I said
earlier, time permitting we could provide the corresponding FreeBSD
binary in the future.

Regards,
Andreas

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl-Petter Åkesson
To: bf1942 at icculus.org
Sent: 4/10/2003 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09

Hi Andreas an everyone else,

I think you maybe missunderstood Sam Evans question. In FreeBSD there
exists a package
(http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/url.cgi?ports/emulators/linux_base/pkg-descr
)
that let you run Linux binaries directly on your FreeBSD machine. It's
quite common for people to do. I've run the BF linux dedicated server
for some time on my FreeBSD machine for instance. I'm also aware of that

statically linked libraries can cause problems for us FreeBSD user when
we try to run Linux binaries. For instance look at the latest version of

TeamSpeak
(http://www.teamspeak.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=d24767f46a633767982a
b70319af5778&forumid=46)
where the statically linked libraries caused a lot of problems for
FreeBSD people. I do not know the exact nature of these problems since I

did not dig into it myself but I believe you can find more about it on
that forum.

/Kalle

Fredriksson, Andreas wrote:
>
> FreeBSD isn't within the current scope of our development, but given
enough
> demand and when our releases have stabilized I don't see why we
couldn't
> compile a native FreeBSD version given that it supports what we need
(I
> haven't
> looked at it since early 4.x).
>
> The goal now is to produce a good Linux version.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Evans
> To: bf1942 at icculus.org
> Sent: 4/9/2003 5:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09
>
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Fredriksson, Andreas wrote:
>
>
>>Hi people,
>>I'm back at work now and atleast the fever is gone..
>>
>>I haven't been working full-time with the linux port since I'm doing
>
> other
>
>>things
>>here as well, but here's a short rundown of what has happened.
>>
>>- I have evaluated moving to completely static linkage of the server
>
> binary
>
>>for
>>  many reasons, but chiefly:
>>  1) DICE only needs to distribute and test for bugs in one version
>>  2) It allows almost everyone (kernel issues aside) to run the binary
>>
>>  I think this makes sense given that most people will have a fairly
>
> new
>
>>kernel,
>>  2.4.x atleast.
>
>
> I'm curious how this will affect folks who are running FreeBSD and
using
> Linux Compatibility mode?
>
>
>