Need help installing on Redhat

[GoldRush]

Can someone please post in detail the steps required to install on redhat?  I've unpacked the tar file but there are dependency issues when running the executable.

/proc/version:

Linux version 2.6.9-42.0.10.ELsmp (brewbuilder@ls20-bc1-14.build.redhat.com) (gcc version 3.4.6 20060404 (Red Hat 3.4.6-3)) #1 SMP Fri Feb 16 17:13:42 EST 2007

Here's what I get:

[root@swamp ~]# cd bitcoin-0.3.8/bin/64
[root@swamp 64]# ./bitcoin
./bitcoin: error while loading shared libraries: libpangocairo-1.0.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
[root@swamp 64]# ./bitcoind
./bitcoind: /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not found (required by ./bitcoind)
./bitcoind: /lib64/tls/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by ./bitcoind)
./bitcoind: /lib64/tls/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.7' not found (required by ./bitcoind)

Thanks for helping me out.

[1715374385]

1715374385

[knightmb]

What version of Glibc are you using?

Goto the console and type "ldd --version" it should tell you what your OS is using, post it back here. I might have a compile that works with yours.

[GoldRush]

What version of Glibc are you using?

Goto the console and type "ldd --version" it should tell you what your OS is using, post it back here. I might have a compile that works with yours.

I actually have several linux machines setup at home and need to be able to compile on each of them.  For the one machine mentioned in my OP we have:

[root@swamp 64]# ldd --version
ldd (GNU libc) 2.3.4
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Written by Roland McGrath and Ulrich Drepper.

[knightmb]

All I have is a CentOS bitcoind that was compiled with glibc 2.5, so it won't work on the system you listed.

All I can say is that it took me all day to figure out the compiling issues for CentOS 5.5.

Perhaps I should start offering compiling solutions for various Linux distros with BTC as the cost? 

[nimnul]

Well, what we need are maintained binary packages for several distros. I vote for CentOS and Arch as a first step I agree to maintain them and provide space, but I'm too lazy to try to create an RPM for CentOS myself 

[jgarzik]

A build script for a particular distro would probably be safer, patent-wise.  CentOS/RHEL/Fedora do not include the patent-encumbered EC-DSA codes from OpenSSL, and anyone using bitcoin requires that.  Therefore, anyone providing builds is providing patent-encumbered software.

IANAL, but apparently, distributing source code or build scripts puts you in a far better position than distributing ready-to-use binary software.

[knightmb]

A build script for a particular distro would probably be safer, patent-wise.  CentOS/RHEL/Fedora do not include the patent-encumbered EC-DSA codes from OpenSSL, and anyone using bitcoin requires that.  Therefore, anyone providing builds is providing patent-encumbered software.

IANAL, but apparently, distributing source code or build scripts puts you in a far better position than distributing ready-to-use binary software.

Remember that Certicom's patent claim pertaining to ECDSA is still just a claim. I haven't seen anything that established them ownership of it since they filed back in 1999 and everything freaked out, but if anyone has an links to some hard court cases, that would be great.

Otherwise, I wouldn't worry about it because since then, a lot of the world governments and big business already use this. I don't know how well they would stand in a lawsuit against the entire planet?

[jgarzik]

A build script for a particular distro would probably be safer, patent-wise.  CentOS/RHEL/Fedora do not include the patent-encumbered EC-DSA codes from OpenSSL, and anyone using bitcoin requires that.  Therefore, anyone providing builds is providing patent-encumbered software.

IANAL, but apparently, distributing source code or build scripts puts you in a far better position than distributing ready-to-use binary software.

Remember that Certicom's patent claim pertaining to ECDSA is still just a claim. I haven't seen anything that established them ownership of it since they filed back in 1999 and everything freaked out, but if anyone has an links to some hard court cases, that would be great.

Otherwise, I wouldn't worry about it because since then, a lot of the world governments and big business already use this. I don't know how well they would stand in a lawsuit against the entire planet?

Big business (Red Hat, IBM, maybe Novell too?) has spent Big Money hiring Real Lawyers, who determined that openssl's EC and EC-DSA support should not be distributed due to patent worries.

Red Hat and IBM have done extensive work and spent millions of dollars clearing a lot of open source code of patent worries, using a combination of lawyer review and patent pooling.  If, after all that, they advise against using something -- I am going to listen.

[nimnul]

distributing source code or build scripts puts you in a far better position than distributing ready-to-use binary software.

Yes, we need both binaries and sources packaged for different platforms. There are standard build scripts for many platforms:

CentOS has SRPM
Arch has AUR
FreeBSD has ports

[knightmb]

Big business (Red Hat, IBM, maybe Novell too?) has spent Big Money hiring Real Lawyers, who determined that openssl's EC and EC-DSA support should not be distributed due to patent worries.

Red Hat and IBM have done extensive work and spent millions of dollars clearing a lot of open source code of patent worries, using a combination of lawyer review and patent pooling.  If, after all that, they advise against using something -- I am going to listen.

Then I suggest, going to them and asking for license. Just like SCO will give you license for Unix still for some money.

[jgarzik]

Big business (Red Hat, IBM, maybe Novell too?) has spent Big Money hiring Real Lawyers, who determined that openssl's EC and EC-DSA support should not be distributed due to patent worries.

Red Hat and IBM have done extensive work and spent millions of dollars clearing a lot of open source code of patent worries, using a combination of lawyer review and patent pooling.  If, after all that, they advise against using something -- I am going to listen.

Then I suggest, going to them and asking for license. Just like SCO will give you license for Unix still for some money.

They don't sell licenses for openssl, they just avoid it, based on multiple independent legal advisors.

We should take the hint...

[knightmb]

Big business (Red Hat, IBM, maybe Novell too?) has spent Big Money hiring Real Lawyers, who determined that openssl's EC and EC-DSA support should not be distributed due to patent worries.

Red Hat and IBM have done extensive work and spent millions of dollars clearing a lot of open source code of patent worries, using a combination of lawyer review and patent pooling.  If, after all that, they advise against using something -- I am going to listen.

Then I suggest, going to them and asking for license. Just like SCO will give you license for Unix still for some money.

They don't sell licenses for openssl, they just avoid it, based on multiple independent legal advisors.

We should take the hint...

So how many independent legal advisors say that the other independent legal advisors are wrong? There are always at least 2 sides to the issue and you don't need to be a legal advisor to decide what works best.

When they actually start winning some courts cases (last I checked years ago, they lost), then I'll put more thought into the issue.