2 Replies Latest reply: Aug 28, 2012 3:08 AM by 957224 RSS

    Runtime requirements for binaries built using Studio 12.3?

    957224
      Is there any documentation of 'hard' runtime requirements in terms of Solaris kernel etc. versions?

      I've just installed Studio 12.3 on Solaris 10 u9 (x64) and both the toolchain and binaries built with it seem to work fine, despite the documented requirement for Sol10u10 for Studio itself.

      I can't find anything which talks about runtime requirements for binaries built using Studio.

      Are there lurking issues which I may run into in production if I try to deploy binaries built using 12.3 on a Solaris version before 10u10?

      Thanks
        • 1. Re: Runtime requirements for binaries built using Studio 12.3?
          Steve.Clamage-Oracle
          The Release Notes for Studio 12.3
          http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E24457_01/html/E21986/ossrn.html#scrolltoc
          lists the minimum OS version as "Solaris 10 10/08", which is S10u6, not S10u10. So you are safe in using S10u9. (Sometimes documentation refers to the date of the update and sometimes to the update number, which I agree can be confusing.)

          The basic runtime compatibility rule has been that you can run on a newer OS version than where you built, not necessarily on an older OS version. The problem is that new OS versions introduce new interfaces, and a program might intentionally or unintentionally depend on an interface that does not exist in an older Solaris version. In that case, the application would not work on the older OS.

          Historically, updates to Solaris were only bug fixes. But Solaris 10 has been out so long that some updates introduced new features and new interfaces.

          A safe rule is to build on the oldest OS version that you intend to allow clients to use. For Solaris 10, it is safest to extend that rule to the oldest update that you intend to allow clients to use.
          • 2. Re: Runtime requirements for binaries built using Studio 12.3?
            957224
            Doh! Thanks for pointing out the obvious mistake in reading the release requirements.