Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

glibc2.27 introduced as dependency in 0.10.0 #427

Closed
justinwoo opened this issue Sep 25, 2019 · 5 comments · Fixed by #437
Closed

glibc2.27 introduced as dependency in 0.10.0 #427

justinwoo opened this issue Sep 25, 2019 · 5 comments · Fixed by #437
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@justinwoo
Copy link
Contributor

you can choose to do nothing about this, but it might be good to do something about it.

What

glibc2.27 is now a runtime dependency of 0.10.0, whereas the previous versions did not do anything requiring this.

Why

good question. some infection happened somewhere.

How

Try using xenial, e.g. on Travis, and install spago via npm.

> spago install
spago: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libm.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.27' not found (required by spago)

Seems expected: https://packages.ubuntu.com/source/xenial/glibc

Non-solution

  • "static compilation"
  • "use easy-purescript-nix"

Potential solutions

@f-f
Copy link
Member

f-f commented Oct 1, 2019

@justinwoo great catch. I'm pretty sure this got in with #395, so I guess we could try downgrading LTS (and GHC) again?

Alternatively, making a static build for Linux is a matter of adding two lines to the Travis config to configure the stack build. I'm quite keen on this since it would avoid us lots of pain with this and with ncurses

@f-f f-f added the bug label Oct 2, 2019
@justinwoo
Copy link
Contributor Author

it might be worthwhile to have both a static and dynamically linked executable available for release. sounds like a pain, but can still be worthwhile for compatibility and for avoiding other unexpected behaviors.

@f-f
Copy link
Member

f-f commented Oct 2, 2019

@justinwoo great point. I'd want to ship the static one to npm though, so that the majority of the users would skip the pain and who needs the dynamic binary can download it directly

Btw I'm experimenting with static builds and I think it should work, I'll PR soon

@justinwoo
Copy link
Contributor Author

if you want to make it truly enterprise, you can require environment variables to determine which binary is downloaded

@f-f
Copy link
Member

f-f commented Oct 2, 2019

@justinwoo I'm afraid I'm not that good at JS to be able to patch the installer, so I'll spawn another issue to implement that once we ship the static binaries

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants