Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<wwvo780imvm.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!nntp.terraraq.uk!.POSTED.tunnel.sfere.anjou.terraraq.org.uk!not-for-mail From: Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Centos stream of batpiss Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:44:13 +0100 Organization: terraraq NNTP server Message-ID: <wwvo780imvm.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> References: <v04g5g$3hofl$1@paganini.bofh.team> <v05kel$uh9t$1@dont-email.me> <1cednanf4p_sOsf7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <v3iuet$3i9vd$4@dont-email.me> <ToC8O.2$h4Ia.1@fx01.iad> <91I8O.16$raU6.4@fx16.iad> <v4ljsa$3s54t$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: innmantic.terraraq.uk; posting-host="tunnel.sfere.anjou.terraraq.org.uk:172.17.207.6"; logging-data="143142"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@innmantic.terraraq.uk" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:L7KPPvj/GrYK8C6KRW70Uq0YWCE= X-Face: h[Hh-7npe<<b4/eW[]sat,I3O`t8A`(ej.H!F4\8|;ih)`7{@:A~/j1}gTt4e7-n*F?.Rl^ F<\{jehn7.KrO{!7=:(@J~]<.[{>v9!1<qZY,{EJxg6?Er4Y7Ng2\Ft>Z&W?r\c.!4DXH5PWpga"ha +r0NzP?vnz:e/knOY)PI- X-Boydie: NO Bytes: 2406 Lines: 20 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: > On Fri, 07 Jun 2024 18:09:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> ... and found a dependency on libc.so.6 which draws a line in the >> sand between Ubuntu 20 and Ubuntu 22 (and their Debian equivalents). >> I've always prided myself on creating binaries that will run on any >> version of an OS, but this dream has been derailed. We've told our >> Ubuntu 20 customers that if they want TLS 1.3 they have no choice but >> to upgrade their OS to Ubuntu 22. Only then can we send them new >> binaries. By the same token, our older binaries, which only support >> TLS 1.1, will not run under Ubuntu 22 ... > > Interesting. Were you able to track down the incompatibility any further? > Because it’s always been my understanding that binaries linked against > older versions of libc.so.6 will continue to run against newer versions, > and a lot of work is done with symbol versioning in glibc to ensure this. They do; his issue is the other way around, i.e. trying to run newer code on older Glibc. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/