4 ms·
Is this the case with Linux?
by ndesaulniers 5y ago
Is this the case with Linux?
- ameliaquining 5y agoNo, Linux has a stable syscall interface (and is unusual in this respect). Consequently, fully static binaries are a reasonable thing to want on that platform (and a major motivation for this proposal is that building them is currently too difficult/annoying/unsupported).
- saurik 5y agoSo, the only reasons it is hard to statically link glibc--the NSS mechanisms for stuff like DNS and user authentication--are the same reasons why statically linking your libc on Linux doesn't make sense in the general case either: the mapping of names to identifiers on both the network and the machine are not part of the system call interface and are instead a property of the specific distribution you are working with; so, if you attempt to statically link that behavior and then run your binary on a fancy new Linux distribution, it won't be able to look up hostnames or usernames correctly. This is why for a while I had the only working busybox binaries for Android: I was the only person who went to the extra effort to NOT statically link it, but instead to port it to bionic.