Glibc has a terrible history of binary incompatibility. If that's so hard to believe, try running binaries built on one distribution on other distributions. Linux has two stable ABIs: the kernel ABI for static programs, and, ironically, WINE.

▲

vlovich123 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I haven’t heard of this and I don’t think you’re right. Glibc, for all its faults, as a general rule does backward compatibility well. The problem is if you compile against a newer glibc (common in CI by default) and try to run on a distro with an older (common in the wild). If your CI uses an older glibc you should be fine AFAIK.

▲

pg83 an hour ago | parent [-]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638477 is the most "famous" example.

There are also much less well-known "little things" that regularly pop up here and there.

> If your CI uses an older glibc you should be fine AFAIK.

In any case, my binaries work not only under glibc, but also under Alpine, and (work in progress) under android/bionic.

	▲	vlovich123 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Not sure what you’re trying to show with that bug report but it’s not a case of cross distro glibc issues. If I read correctly it’s a vanilla behavioral change that exposed preexisting UB in flash. Not sure how the comments about alpine or bionic relate either to my claim that cross distro glibc is fine.

▲

diabllicseagull an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

according to appimage recommendations as long as you build against glibc with an earlier version than the system it's run on it should be fine.

https://docs.appimage.org/reference/best-practices.html

I hear you about WINE though.

	▲	Natalia724 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]