On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 01:45:02AM +0000, Daniel Llewellyn wrote:
> On 9 December 2017 at 23:47, Steve Langasek <[email protected]>
> > > Furthermore, that this really does not answer the original question. I
> > > find it quite possible that the question will still stand regardless of
> > > whether or not I considered a snap. This is a build-level issue, from
> > > what I can tell, not necessarily a matter of the packaging framework.
> > > That said, do you have any relevant advice?
> > Well, except that you don't have to backport the stack package-by-package
> > onto trusty in the case of a snap, you could simply use all of the
> > already-successfully-built .debs from zesty as needed; so I would expect
> > this to be a non-issue for a snap.
> It's not quite as easy as just using the Zesty debs when building your
> snap, because the Zesty user-land is built against a newer libc than that
> included in the core snap, which is currently the only base snap available
> based on Ubuntu, and is built against the Xenial user-land. The fact that
> the debs from Zesty will be compiled against the newer libc means that
> they are likely unable to run on the libc included in the core snap and
> you'll still have a problem with having to backport in some sense. The
> error you'll get if you do use the Zesty repositories is similar to
> "python3: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version 'GLIBC_2.25' not found
> (required by python3)".
Actually, zesty shipped with glibc 2.24. As far as I'm aware, this issue
only affects snaps built on artful or later (glibc 2.26).
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
[email protected] [email protected]