4 ms·

So does that mean no statically linked binaries since glibc can't be statically linked?

by ashishmax31 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tephra 6y ago
OpenBSD does not use glibc.
dilyevsky 6y ago
Not glibc in mac os/openbsd case but yeah can’t have fully static go binaries on those.
pjmlp 6y ago
glibc is Linux only.
- sanxiyn 6y ago
  glibc also supports Hurd.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Yep, it is already at 1.0 finally?
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Did Debian not also port most of glibc to support FreeBSD's kernel?
    - sanxiyn 6y ago
      Yes they did. See http://www.nongnu.org/glibc-bsd/ http://www.nongnu.org/glibc-bsd/.
makapuf 6y ago
But if even Go can't use static binaries, does that mean that static binaries are not supported by those systems ?
- ashishmax31 6y ago
  I would think so. Can anyone eli5 why statically linking binaries is a big deal? Even light weight container oriented linux distributions like alpine ship with musl. In which scenario would it find it use cases?
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Some have the viewpoint that static linking allows for what is essentially dependency pinning of binaries.
  - q3k 6y ago
    Massively simplifies the build process, especially for cross-compilation. You can just build the binary, copy it over and run it, without having to ever touch containers, or having to worry about sysroots. You can go ahead and do the following on your Mac: GOARCH=riscv GOOS=linux go build to build a binary that just runs on Linux on RISC-V.
  - arp242 6y ago
    One advantage is that you need to worry less about versions; if I build a dynamic library that uses a feature from GNU libc 2.30, and someone tries to run it with GNU libc 2.23 then they will get an error. These versions are not chosen at random: I ran in to this issue with people trying to run my binary on Ubuntu 16.04 (LTS release), which was solved by linking it statically. Also, people may use musl libc, and while it has some compatibility with GNU libc this is far from complete. So in short, linking it statically means it will work for the largest amount of people with a minimal of fuss for both the person building the binaries, and the people running them. As people have mentioned, these issues are less present on non-Linux systems.
    - account42 6y ago

So does that mean no statically linked binaries since glibc can't be statically linked?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tephra 6y ago

OpenBSD does not use glibc.

dilyevsky 6y ago

Not glibc in mac os/openbsd case but yeah can’t have fully static go binaries on those.

pjmlp 6y ago

glibc is Linux only.

sanxiyn 6y ago
glibc also supports Hurd.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Yep, it is already at 1.0 finally?
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Did Debian not also port most of glibc to support FreeBSD's kernel?
  - sanxiyn 6y ago
    Yes they did. See http://www.nongnu.org/glibc-bsd/ http://www.nongnu.org/glibc-bsd/.

makapuf 6y ago

But if even Go can't use static binaries, does that mean that static binaries are not supported by those systems ?

ashishmax31 6y ago
I would think so. Can anyone eli5 why statically linking binaries is a big deal? Even light weight container oriented linux distributions like alpine ship with musl. In which scenario would it find it use cases?
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Some have the viewpoint that static linking allows for what is essentially dependency pinning of binaries.
- q3k 6y ago
  Massively simplifies the build process, especially for cross-compilation. You can just build the binary, copy it over and run it, without having to ever touch containers, or having to worry about sysroots. You can go ahead and do the following on your Mac: GOARCH=riscv GOOS=linux go build to build a binary that just runs on Linux on RISC-V.
- arp242 6y ago
  One advantage is that you need to worry less about versions; if I build a dynamic library that uses a feature from GNU libc 2.30, and someone tries to run it with GNU libc 2.23 then they will get an error. These versions are not chosen at random: I ran in to this issue with people trying to run my binary on Ubuntu 16.04 (LTS release), which was solved by linking it statically. Also, people may use musl libc, and while it has some compatibility with GNU libc this is far from complete. So in short, linking it statically means it will work for the largest amount of people with a minimal of fuss for both the person building the binaries, and the people running them. As people have mentioned, these issues are less present on non-Linux systems.
  - account42 6y ago