Eric Schwartz wrote:
[...]
> Actually, ia-32 shared libraries can be loaded just fine on Itanium;
> depending on your distribution, this may require installing some
> compatibility libraries, but there's no problem there.  Contact your
> distribution vendor for more information.  If you're using Debian,
> contact the maintainer for the ia32-libs package.

There is somewhat of a problem with installing compatibility libraries,
since I'm trying to build a single binary package which can be
distributed to customers who may be running IA-32, or may be using
Itanium. We can't require that end users install other packages for
compatibility, since our stuff is supposed to work on a "bare" install
of Red Hat.

If nothing else, I can always just include IA-32 and Itanium .SO files,
and import the proper set at runtime, but I'm trying to minimize the
distributed file size. Unfortunately, total size is a big deal, because
I'm being pressured to use a language other than Ruby to build our tool
if I can't come up with a simple cross-platform support solution.

If distributing either the compatibility libraries, or versions of the
shared libs for both platforms, pushes the file size over that of a
static C++ or Java (via GCJ) binary, then one of my current key
arguments for Ruby (smaller distribution size due to .rb source files
being more compact than equivalent binaries) ceases to be true, and
higher forces may make me switch to a compiled language.

So, I'm just trying to get a feel for whether it's even possible to
build Ruby as purely-static binary with OpenSSL support. If not, then I
can look into distributing a bunch of compatibility libraries, but that
gets ugly quickly once you have at least two major libc versions and
two architectures to support.

Lennon
rcoder.net