[Gretl-users] Linux versions of gretl

[Gordon Hughes]

As a newcomer, I apologise if this e-mail raises an issue that has 
been settled in the past.  My query or suggestion concerns the 
possibility of providing a statically linked version of gretl for 
Linux.  [The Windows & Mac versions are necessarily statically linked 
because it cannot be assumed that users have the necessary 
dlls.]  The query is prompted by two considerations.

A.  Over a period of several months I have been experimenting with 
different Linux desktop distributions in an attempt to find a 
satisfactory way of avoiding Windows Vista.  Whenever I attempt to 
install gretl on a new distribution, it is necessary to look around 
for rpm or deb files that resolve gretl's dependencies - particularly 
versions of BLAS, LAPACK, GNU C & Fortran libraries.  In some cases 
(eg Xandros & Centos) that is only possible by going back to quite 
outdated versions of gretl (1.5 or earlier) because the OS packagers 
are deliberately using "oldstable" or "stable" versions of master 
distributions (especially Debian).  Even popular distributions such 
as Ubuntu and SimplyMEPIS have libraries that are not compatible with 
the most recent versions of gretl - at least not without going to 
considerable effort.  For a rapidly evolving program it is somewhat 
unsatisfactory to have to rely upon a version that is quite old.

B.  Just yesterday, I encountered a different version of the same 
problem.  I have decided to use Suse Linux for my main systems - in 
particular Novell's Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop (SLED) which is 
generally compatible with OpenSuse 10.1 & 10.2.  I tried to install 
gretl 1.6.5 and failed because it could not resolve the dependency 
for libpng12.so.0 (a PNG graphics library).  So I tried version 1.6.2 
instead and there were no problems.  Given the recent history of 
gretl releases I assume that the change was made in version 1.6.3 but 
it illustrates the problem of resolving an ever changing set of 
dependencies as the program is extended.

I notice that most providers of commercial or quasi-commercial 
software - eg Stata, spreadsheets - provide statically linked 
versions of their packages or a choice.  The main reason for avoiding 
static linking is that it increases the size of the package, perhaps 
a lot.  But the difference between the sizes of the gretl executables 
for Windows and Linux is not that large and few users have 
significantly concerns about storage capacity.  In principle, a 
statically linked version should execute more quickly, but I 
understand that the difference is rarely noticeable.  Still, on 
grounds of convenience and extending the reach of gretl I think that 
it would be desirable to offer a statically linked version if the 
burden of doing so is not too large.

I have no knowledge of whether the main user community for gretl 
relies upon Windows.  There is also a matter of philosophy - most 
desktop versions of Linux give high priority to stability and 
security rather than having the most recent versions of software.  On 
the other hand, I think that desktop Linux is a genuine competitor to 
Windows Vista (because most versions run on much lower specification 
hardware), especially in universities, government organisations and 
developing countries.  Offering gretl for Linux in a version that 
causes the minimum of hassle of installation would play to the 
advantage of low cost and minimum hardware requirements.

Gordon Hughes