Re:XARs: An efficient system for self-contained executables
by tathougies on Friday July 13, 2018 @03:10PM
(#17525796)
If you statically link, it doesn't matter what version of glibc is on the target machine, because it's not used.
Re:XARs: An efficient system for self-contained executables
by 21 on Friday July 13, 2018 @03:21PM
(#17525881)
You would think so, but it's not true. I struggled with this for a few days before giving up (after finding articles which stated that this is really going where nobody went before)
> Static linking of glibc is not supported on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/02/17/upgrading-the-...
Re:XARs: An efficient system for self-contained executables
by isostatic on Friday July 13, 2018 @03:45PM
(#17526075)
I don't pretend to know a lot about linking files, but I just checked an old static ffmbc binary I had lying around
:/tmp$ file ffmbc
ffmbc: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV),
statically linked, for GNU/Linux 2.6.15, BuildID[sha1]=...., stripped
:/tmp$ ldd ffmbc
not a dynamic executable
It runs on the following libc versions: ldd (GNU libc) 2.12 (Centos 6.9)
ldd (Ubuntu EGLIBC 2.19-0ubuntu6.14) 2.19 (ubuntu 14.04)
ldd (Ubuntu GLIBC 2.23-0ubuntu10) 2.23 (Ubuntu 16.04)
I'm fairly sure it ran on distributions as old as ubuntu 8.04
Long story short, it wasn't possible. Because the latest versions of Ubuntu and CentOS at the time used different versions of glibc which were mutually incompatible.