The problem is not the APIs, it's symbol versions. You will routinely get loader errors when running software compiled against a newer glibc than what a system provides, even if the caller does not use any "new" APIs.

glibc-based toolchains are ultimately missing a GLIBC_MIN_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET definition that gets passed to the linker so it knows which minimum version of glibc your software supports, similar to how Apple's toolchain lets you target older MacOS from a newer toolchain.

▲ jhasse 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's exactly what apgcc from Autopackage provided (20 years ago). https://github.com/DeaDBeeF-Player/apbuild

But compiling in a container is easier and also solves other problems.

▲ amelius 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, so that's why freezing the glibc symbol versions would help. If everybody uses the same version, you cannot get conflicts (at least after it has rippled through and everybody is on the same version). The downside is that we can't add anything new to glibc, but I'd say given all the trouble it produces, that's worth accepting. We can still add bugfixes and security fixes to glibc, we just don't change the APIs of the symbols.

	▲	uecker 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It should not be necessary to freeze it. glibc is already extremely backwards compatible. The problem is people distributing programs that request the newest version even though they do not really require it, and this then fails on systems having an older version. At least this is my understanding. The actual practical problem is not glibc but the constant GUI / desktop API changes.

▲ Y_Y 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In principle you can patch your binary to accept the old local version, though I don't remember ever getting it to work right. Anyway here it is for the brave or foolhardy, here's the gist:

  patchelf --set-interpreter /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 "$APP"
  patchelf --set-rpath /lib "$APP"

	▲	follower an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> [...] brave or foolhardy, [...] Heed the above warning as down this rpath madness surely lies! Exhibit A: https://gitlab.com/RancidBacon/notes_public/-/blob/main/note... Exhibit B: https://gitlab.com/RancidBacon/notes_public/-/blob/main/note... Exhibit C: https://gitlab.com/RancidBacon/notes_public/-/blob/main/note... Oh, sure, rpath/runpath shenanigans will work in some situations but then you'll be tempted to make such shenanigans work in all situations and then the madness will get you... To save everyone a click here are the first two bullet points from Exhibit A: * If an executable has `RPATH` (a.k.a. `DT_RPATH`) set but a shared library that is a (direct or indirect(?)) dependency of that executable has `RUNPATH` (a.k.a. `DT_RUNPATH`) set then the executable's `RPATH` is ignored! * This means a shared library dependency can "force" loading of an incompatible [(for the executable)] dependency version in certain situations. [...] Further nuances regarding LD_LIBRARY_PATH can be found in Exhibit B but I can feel the madness clawing at me again so will stop here. :)
	▲	btdmaster 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes you can do this, thanks for mentioning I was interested and checked how you would go about it. 1. Delete the shared symbol versioning as per https://stackoverflow.com/a/73388939 (patchelf --clear-symbol-version exp mybinary) 2. Replace libc.so with a fake library that has the right version symbol with a version script e.g. version.map GLIBC_2.29 { global: *; }; With an empty fake_libc.c `gcc -shared -fPIC -Wl,--version-script=version.map,-soname,libc.so.6 -o libc.so.6 fake_libc.c` 3. Hope that you can still point the symbols back to the real libc (either by writing a giant pile of dlsym C code, or some other way, I'm unclear on this part) Ideally glibc would stop checking the version if it's not actually marked as needed by any symbol, not sure why it doesn't (technically it's the same thing normally, so performance?).