Heh, I was just thinking that myself.
The reason we are currently dependent on full gcc tools (and the reason perhaps i've been mistakenly thinking we should be supporting linux users rebuilding the modules) is that I thought linking would be different on each system, with the default G++ link options being a little intimidating to grasp / replicate to make linux blitzmax standalone.
Thinking about it now, I think we should probably make an effort to try and come up with a distribution that is standalone like we are doing with win32/mingw with ld, libs and includes included in the BlitzMax directory tree.
So yes, the solution for Mr FreeMan could be to resync the modules, DON'T try rebuilding them and see if you can get some samples to run.
The reason we are currently dependent on full gcc tools (and the reason perhaps i've been mistakenly thinking we should be supporting linux users rebuilding the modules) is that I thought linking would be different on each system, with the default G++ link options being a little intimidating to grasp / replicate to make linux blitzmax standalone.
Thinking about it now, I think we should probably make an effort to try and come up with a distribution that is standalone like we are doing with win32/mingw with ld, libs and includes included in the BlitzMax directory tree.
So yes, the solution for Mr FreeMan could be to resync the modules, DON'T try rebuilding them and see if you can get some samples to run.