[cmm]

when have you last tried to create a statically-linked binary that used glibc, and how did that go for you? or how about statically relinking a dynamically-linked binary you don't have sources for?

(but hey, I also felt cheated when I read how clodl works. the hope for magic is always there, isn't it)

[choeger]

> or how about statically relinking a dynamically-linked binary you don't have sources for?

Even though I don't know why you would do that, I think you could do it by running a modified version of the dynamic linker. That thing basically runs like an interpreter for your binary. It links the code and then executes it. It should not be impossible to modify it to instead dump your ELF again, no?

[fao_]

> when have you last tried to create a statically-linked binary that used glibc, and how did that go for you?

I don't write code that requires Glib, but last I remember, there are explicit (lesser-known) flags that give complete static independence :P

My implicit point is that essentially, there is a slew of approaches that seem to be reinventing the wheel to solve the obvious problems in dynamic linking, but they seem to combine the problems of static linking with the problems of dynamic linking. Because people have the memoized knowledge that "static linking old and bad", they twist software into worse solutions because what they want are static libraries and binaries, but for whatever reason they don't feel they can use them.

> or how about statically relinking a dynamically-linked binary you don't have sources for?

Most open source developers don't tend to stray that far off the beaten path, at least in the communities where snap/flatpak/appimage are commonly used.

[pengaru]

> I don't write code that requires Glib, but last I remember, there are explicit (lesser-known) flags that give complete static independence :P

Glib != glibc

[fao_]

I actually wrote that in, but removed it accidentally when I was adding capitalisation :)

I think it's pretty clear based on context that I'm talking about GlibC though :P

[mhitza]

> I don't write code that requires Glib, but last I remember, there are explicit (lesser-known) flags that give complete static independence :P

I wouldn't mind if there was some quick way of doing this. I would like to statically link a bunch of commandline utilies that I'd like to just copy in my home folder on various servers without installing them globally.

Granted, I'm not a C developer so I just searched for answers on statically linking, but I never was able to easily create these binaries (with a few exceptions). If I recall correctly I had to individually compile dependencies to be able to statically link to those as well (and a bunch of C_FLAGS/LD_LIBRARY_PATH/INCLUDE_PATH env vars sprinkled everywhere to wire all those up).

If someone has a bash script gcc-static-link that I can use as a wrapper around gcc I'd be more than happy to hear about it :)

[geggam]

>Because people have the memoized knowledge that "static linking old and bad",

It feels to me that the container mentality wants to abstract the complexity of the computing to the point they are creating issues that were solved before then layering that on a complex OS and pretending the OS isnt required |

At some point software has to sit on hardware...