4 ms·
I always understood the glibc versioning problem to be solved by just building on the oldest common ancestor. If you have rhel5 through 8, you build on rhel5 an
by onei 5y ago
I always understood the glibc versioning problem to be solved by just building on the oldest common ancestor. If you have rhel5 through 8, you build on rhel5 and move on. If you depend on more than glibc... Well rhel5 is less fun.
- ptsneves 5y agoIndeed, the only difference is that you might be using less optimal system calls, but there is no reason to be blocked and not target ancient kernels. I linked to 2.6 this year and everything ran fine.
- ghoward 5y agoAuthor here. Unfortunately, building on the oldest common ancestor will still not save you from ABI breaks. An example is [1]. If the size of `intmax_t` changes between that oldest ancestor and the machines you are running on, get ready for pain. [1]: https://thephd.dev/intmax_t-hell-c++-c https://thephd.dev/intmax_t-hell-c++-c