omnios-build VS glibc_version_header

key features at OmniOS Community Edition

OS Challenge: Try out an Illumos (OpenSolaris) image in a VM (there are Solaris kernel options available in Proxmox). If you want something fun, install OmniOS and create a Linux zone on it. So cool to run Linux on Solaris. https://omnios.org/

While UTM is much better at resource usage, it's not perfect. Virtualbox seems to emulate more of a system instead of passing it through to the hypervisor and so is better for running more unusual OSes. I have two VMs there running Illumos which I have yet to figure out how to boot in UTM. A problem that I think is related to UTM's greater use of the hypervisor is that you can't suspend and resume VMs that use it instead of being emulated, so I've still got a few VMs hanging around in Virtualbox which spend most of their time suspended. Finally, what stops me from using UTM at work is that you can't use it as a Vagrant provider. This is incredibly annoying, as the lack of a decent virtualization application makes the otherwise very nice M1 Macs nothing more than pretty toys. I expect that this glaring lack will be fixed within the next couple of years.

Can anyone recommend a good place to start learning OmniOS? Coming from Debain world. Other than the documentation on omnios.org, I only found a few blog posts here and there...

OpenIndiana is pretty neat. It has quite a few cool features like Zones, DTrace and Crossbow. ZFS is another big feature but you have already said that you don't really care about that. Hardware support is kinda lacking, but improving. Also it's rolling release so if you're like me and don't like that, OmniOS might be a better option; it's another illumos based OS.

One major headache with trying to run precompiled binaries on Linux is that if they were compiled using a newer version of glibc than the target machine, they won't be able to run. Back while working on Factorio, I was trying to get around this problem with endless Docker containers, but coworker Wheybags came up with a much solution to this, which is simply to, at compile time, link to the oldest compatible version of glibc: https://github.com/wheybags/glibc_version_header

If what you're doing works for you, great, but in case it stops working at some point (or if for some reason you need to build on a current-gen distro version), you could also consider using this:

https://github.com/wheybags/glibc_version_header

It's a set of autogenerated headers that use symbol aliasing to allow you to build against your current version of glibc, but link to the proper older versioned symbols such that it will run on whatever oldest version of glibc you select.

There are other approaches like https://github.com/wheybags/glibc_version_header or sysroots with older glibc, e.g. https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Crossdev - you don't need your whole XP, just the the system libs to link against.

Sure, having a nice SDK where you can just specify the minimum vesion you want to support would be nice but who do you expect to develop such an SDK? GNU/glibc maintainers? They would rather you ship as source. Red Hat / SUSE / Canonical? They want you to target only their distro. Valve? They decided its easier to just provide an unchaning set of libraries since they need to support existing games that got things wrong anyway and already have a distribution platform to distribute such a base system along with the games without bundling it into every single one.

A few links gathered from a quick google search as a primer:

http://stevehanov.ca/blog/?id=97

https://www.evanjones.ca/portable-linux-binaries.html

https://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2012/07/creating-portable-...

https://rpg.hamsterrepublic.com/ohrrpgce/Portable_GNU-Linux_...

https://github.com/wheybags/glibc_version_header

In other words: there are a lot of steps and a lot of gotchyas to doing this that you're glossing over. Linux userland libraries are generally designed with the intention that an army of third-party maintainers will integrate all of this desperately developed software together and place it in a repo. Naturally every distribution wants to do things a little differently too, and they have a habit of changing it up every couple years. When you try to step out of that mold things unsurprisingly become more difficult. Whereas Windows, Mac, Android, etc. have been designed since the beginning not to require that sort of thing and it is consequently a much, much more straightforward process.

I'm curious why, since you seem to believe the process is so straight-forward, you think it is that so few people distribute a simple binary? Why were Flatpak and AppImage invented?

> Binaries compiled against today's glibc can fail to run on a machine that hasn't been updated since last week because they rely on a new / different symbol.

Note, however, that it is a Glibc bug (modulo Drepper’s temper) if the reverse happens: Glibc symbol versioning ensures that binaries depending on an old Glibc (only) will run on a new one. So the proper way to build a maximally-compatible Linux executable would be to build a cross toolchain targeting an old Glibc and compile your code with it. Unfortunately, the build system is hell and old Glibcs doesn’t compile without backported patches, so while I did try to follow in the footsteps of a couple of people[1–4], I did not succeed.

Mass-rebuilds still happen with other ecosystems, though. GHC-compiled Haskell libraries are fine-grained and not ABI-stable across compiler versions, so my Arch box regularly gets hit with a deluge of teensy library updates, and Arch is currently undergoing a massive Python rebuild (blocking all other Python package updates) behind the scenes as well.

[1]: https://github.com/wheybags/glibc_version_header (hack but easy and will probably work most of the time)