Login
You're viewing the social.afront.org public feed.

Replies

  • Billy O'Nealmalwareminigun@infosec.exchange
    Apr 21, 2026, 3:11 AM

    @whitequark It's entirely possible I screwed up the muslc version. It's intended to be static but maybe I had glibc brain at the time? It's *intended* to work with a static muslc if you want.

    Should I just build on Alpine and check with ldd or is there something else I should confirm?

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • ✧✦Catherine✦✧whitequark@treehouse.systems
    Apr 21, 2026, 3:12 AM

    @malwareminigun sorry I feel like we're talking past each other a bit. I was responding to

    I mean, anything that touches the network is questionable with a static libc because DNS lives in libc and DNS has a lot of machine-dependent behavior.

    by saying that I don't think it's questionable if I use musl

    separately from that, I just discovered to my mild displeasure that vcpkg wouldn't build a musl sysroot for me (the -musl switch seems to do... nothing useful if you run it on Debian)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Billy O'Nealmalwareminigun@infosec.exchange
    Apr 21, 2026, 3:17 AM

    @whitequark If you mean the bootstrap script that just changes the copy of our binary that gets downloaded. `-musl` is intended as an escape hatch if we download the glibc copy on a musl system to whack the bootstrapper over the head and say "download the musl one damnit".

    We are not trying to setup an entire "linux sysroot" or that sort of thing; in particular we think binary deployment is better done by existing tools like apt/dnf/pacman/zypper/etc. and explicitly aren't packaging *applications* because we think our UX is bad for what apt customers want.

    EDIT: And sorry for potential talking past. I just want to make sure if there is stuff that you would want fixed that is within my power to fix that it is fixed.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • ✧✦Catherine✦✧whitequark@treehouse.systems
    Apr 21, 2026, 3:19 AM

    @malwareminigun I don't think there's anything to fix! I just did not entirely understand the scope or design of vcpkg

    well, there's a packaging bug where dbus can't be built with staticcrt (presumably because it builds both the daemon and the library in the same package, with no feature flags?) but it's not an issue with the core package manager

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Billy O'Nealmalwareminigun@infosec.exchange
    Apr 21, 2026, 3:28 AM

    @whitequark If that changes just poke. For now I'll just keep thinking of this image.

    dbus port has been no end of confusion for us because they do need that daemon but it really seems intended that "there can be only one" on a system and we REALLY don't want to step on systemwide package managers' toes

    The scene from Pirates of the Caribbean where an officer says "you are the worst pirate I've ever heard of" and Jack replies "but you have heard of me". Whitequark's avatar is pasted on the officer and Billy's on Jack. The captions read is there any existing cross-platform solution which will do that for me and also isn't vcpkg? so you have heard of vcpkg
    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • ✧✦Catherine✦✧whitequark@treehouse.systems
    Apr 21, 2026, 3:31 AM

    @malwareminigun I'm super confused re: dbus

    most packages just need libdbus-1 which is normally built as a static library (unless I misremember)

    the applications aren't expected to build the daemon. some of them will want to ship and run it, yeah, but only a small subset and only really on Windows?

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0