Today when I compiled Dosbox for Slacko 6.3, the binary didn't work in Slacko 5.7 (/lib/libc.so.6: version 'GLIBC_2.17' not found (required by ./dosbox)), but when I compiled Dosbox for Slacko 5.7, it also worked in Slacko 6.3. On top of that, the one compiled for Slacko 5.7 was smaller in size (2585796 vs. 2634916 bytes), so I wonder what the benefit of compiling for a newer version is? Maybe the one compiled for 6.3 will run faster on 6.3? Maybe something will work better because it was compiled with a more recent gcc version? I didn't notice a difference, and also wonder if it's really worth it compiling for newer also.Mike Walsh wrote:Evening all.
You know, the more I think about this, the less sense it makes to me.
peebee's been making this disclaimer for quite some time (at least as far back as 38 ).....about the more recent Chromium's not working in the older Pups. Fair comment. Right, then; explain this to me, if you will:-
I run Slacko 570, and X-Slacko 2.3.2 (570 + XFCE), OK? Granted, I'm not talking here about Chromium, but Chrome (and we all know that Chrome is simply the stable version of Chromium plus Google's proprietary bit's'n'bobs, yes?)
So how come I'm running OscarTalk's version of Chrome 47.0.2526.106 (plus the obligatory libgconf2 and libgnomekeyring to get them to work) with absolutely no problems at all?
Bit of a head-scratcher, that one. I ain't losing any sleep over it.....but it rather contradicts peebee's statement, doesn't it? Don't ask me why I prefer Chrome (I just do).....but I do use AlienBob's Chromium PepperFlash (thanks again for the link, peebee!), extract the libpepflashplayer.so module from it, and use it in Chrome. Works fine.
Or are there bigger differences between Chrome and Chromium than I'm aware of? Is this anything to do with the fact that peebee's versions of Chromium are Slackware-compiled and -compatible?
Mike.
