On Wednesday, 26 February 2014 at 18:52:55 UTC, Assaf Gordon
wrote:
It might be "generally available" when you assume you're
dealing with "recent" "desktop" versions of linux.
I've had good luck with them on my servers too but I haven't used
many of the distros.
But I have had the same libc version problems you see too.
I think that low-level libraries (e.g. ld-linux, libc,
linux-gate, librt, libpthread) are tightly coupled to the
system (and the kernel), you really don't want to run
incompatible ones on an arbitrary linux system.
If this were true, static linking would be useless! Static
linking is basically just copying the library functions into your
binary instead of leaving a reference to the library.
I'd argue the opposite: it is a D problem (or
libphobos2/druntime problem, which is a major part of D).
I'm not sure because searching the web for people having this
problem with C++ suggests the fix is to update the libc on their
development computer. So that might work with us too.... but then
again if it breaks on your computer too who knows.
I have tried it with C-based projects, and based on my humble
experience, anything except a real static binary will
eventually cause problems to users.
I agree, this is why I prefer distributing Windows exes :) but if
you know your target computers it might not be a big problem,
just compile with a libc close enough to them.
