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/