Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lmm 150 days ago
> The trick? It's not statically linked, but dynamically linked. And it doesn't like with anything other than glibc, X11 ... and bdb.

How would that work given that glibc has gone through a soname change since then? If it's from 1996 are you sure the secret isn't that it uses non-g libc?
1 comments
AshamedCaptain 150 days ago
It has libc5 and glibc versions. It even has a version shipped as an rpm, which I guess makes it from 97. The rpm, by the way, also installs.
link
lmm 149 days ago
> It has libc5 and glibc versions

That suggests someone went to significantly more effort than "just dynamically link it".

link
AshamedCaptain 149 days ago
What effort exactly does it suggest? It ls literally dynamically linked with glbc.
link
lmm 147 days ago
It suggests someone went into the details of how it was linked and was careful about what it was and wasn't linked to, and perhaps even intervened directly in the low-level parts of the linking process.
link
AshamedCaptain 146 days ago
Or rather it simply suggests you build for two versions of the major distributions of then, or the two distributions even...

Why is my entire argument so hard to understand? To build for a different glibc you do not have to do _any_ type of arcane magic or whatever you claim. You just build in a different system... or chroot... I have been doing that _myself_ for at least 15 years, and I know of other Linux desktop commercial shops that have been doing it for much, much longer. Chroots are _trivial_.

link