User forums > General (but related to Code::Blocks)

[issue compiling] codeblocks_13.12-1.tar.gz [RedHat5]

<< < (2/3) > >>

hereticus:

--- Quote from: oBFusCATed on April 26, 2014, 06:04:59 pm ---Probably it is related to a not supported version of autotools or something. The 13.12 package build fine for me on a gentoo machine... If I find time I'll try it on a centos6 machine, too.

--- End quote ---

I work in corporate environment that does not tend to have the latest tools. And sometimes very old tools are available by default. I had compile error such as
zip -u *....
with error message that -u option is not recognized. I somehow found newer version of zip binary to continue my way.

Now I will check autotools versions.

Thanks.

Jenna:

--- Quote from: hereticus on April 27, 2014, 02:59:44 pm ---
--- Quote from: jens on April 26, 2014, 06:22:40 pm ---By the way:
is it really gcc 4.7.2 ?

Where did you get it from ?

--- End quote ---
I wonder what is surprising you?)
ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.7.2

--- End quote ---
I know that it is possible to compile gcc on your own.
But I wonder why you do it.
Code::Blocks compiles fine on CentOS 5 with default packages (gcc 4.1.2) if you have repoforge-repo active (wxGTK), except for the NassiShneiderman-plugin, which needs a boost version, that is not available for CentOS/RedHat 5.
Or at least was not when first building packages for my repo.
By the way, you can also use prebuild Code::Blocks packages from my repo (see signature).

hereticus:
jens

There are corporate standards that are updated each year in the company that I work. I must follow it by default.
Corporate standards assume using specific versions of certain tools.
gcc-4.7.2 is our standard compiler at this point

There are other compilers available in our corporate repo such as 4.8.2, even 4.2 but I must use default version unless there are reasons not to use them.

oBFusCATed:
We don't care what compiler do you use to build your software or what corporate standards you're following.

But generally C::B should be built with the native compiler for the distro. In your case this is gcc 4.1.2.
The reason is that all required libraries are often built with this compiler and so the binary compatibility is better.
Also this is the reason why major binary distros (red hat/debian) doesn't change the compiler after a major release is made until the next major release.

So either you're using gcc 4.1.2 and you don't realize it (g++ --version to check the default compiler) or either you're using some strange command (if this is the case please post it).

hereticus:

--- Quote from: oBFusCATed on April 27, 2014, 04:04:04 pm ---We don't care what compiler do you use to build your software or what corporate standards you're following.

But generally C::B should be built with the native compiler for the distro. In your case this is gcc 4.1.2.
The reason is that all required libraries are often built with this compiler and so the binary compatibility is better.
Also this is the reason why major binary distros (red hat/debian) doesn't change the compiler after a major release is made until the next major release.

--- End quote ---

This was helpful.
It works with RH5 native tools.
Thanks for directions!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page