[XeTeX] XeTeX 0.9999.0 released

[Khaled Hosny]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:42:39AM +0100, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> 2013/3/14 Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny at eglug.org>:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 07:20:15AM -0300, George N. White III wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Zdenek Wagner <zdenek.wagner at gmail.com>wrote:
> >>
> >> > 2013/3/13 Mojca Miklavec <mojca.miklavec.lists at gmail.com>:
> >> > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:40 PM, George N. White III wrote:
> >> > >> On RHEL 5.9, TLContrib packages don't work:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> xetex: symbol lookup error: xetex: undefined symbol:
> >> > _ZGVNSt7collateIwE2idE
> >> > >> luatex: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.7' not found (required by
> >> > luatex)
> >> > >> luatex: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.11' not found (required by
> >> > >> luatex)
> >> > >>
> >> > >> RHEL 5 (GLIBC 2.5) dates from 2005 and was expected to be in service 5
> >> > years
> >> > >> but is still widely used (7 is the new 5).  RHEL 5 can't readily build
> >> > the
> >> > >> new xetex as the tools are too old, but it looks like RHEL 6 (due to
> >> > replace
> >> > >> RHEL 5 "real soon now" at many "7 is 5" sites) has GLIBC 2.12, so if the
> >> > >> TLcontrib packages are a guide, should support TL2013:
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks a lot for the feedback. I guess that this is about x86_64-linux?
> >> > >
> >> > > The hardware being used for compiling XeTeX is different than the one
> >> > > that will be used for building TeX Live 2013, so there is no need to
> >> > > panic yet ;)
> >> > >
> >> > > I just need a volunteer or a virtual machine to build against an older
> >> > glibc.
> >> > >
> >> > I have just looked at CentOS 5.5 which should be based on RHEL 5.5. It
> >> > contains /usr/lib64/libc.co and /usr/lib/libc.so, I do not see any
> >> > other libc.so.* under /usr
> >> >
> >> > I can try to build XeTeX on it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I did try building XeTeX on RHEL 5.9, but tools like autoconf are very old
> >> versions, so be prepared for a long session of upgrading tools.
> >
> > Building from the tarball (or better the release-0.9999.0 branch on git)
> > should not require having autotools, but you still need a recent enough
> > gcc (3.x known not to work for HarfBuzz).
> >
> Even CentOS 5.0 has gcc 4.1.1, do you think it is enough?

I don't know for sure, 4.4 is the lowest version used
successfully AFAIK.

Regards,
Khaled