this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
33 points (90.2% liked)

Linux

47948 readers
1590 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
33
Building and distributing binaries (programming.dev)
submitted 5 months ago by lazyneet@programming.dev to c/linux@lemmy.ml
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It's been a long day and I'm probably not in the best state of mind to be asking this question, but have you guys solved packaging yet?

I want to ship an executable with supporting files in a compressed archive, much like the Windows exe-in-a-zip pattern. I can cross-compile a Win32 C program using MinGW that will always use baseline Win32 functionality, but if I try to build for Linux I run into the whole dependency versioning situation, specifically glibc fixing its symbol version to whichever Linux I happen to be building from at the time. But if I try to static link with musl, the expectation is that everything is static linked, including system libraries that really shouldn't be.

AppImage is in the ballpark of what I'm looking for, and I've heard that Zig works as a compatibility-enhancing frontend if you're compiling C. I'd just like something simple that runs 99% of the time for non-technical end users and isn't bloated with dependencies I can't keep track of. (No containers.) Is this easily achievable?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lazyneet@programming.dev 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Mainly getting builds onto platforms catering to Windows users and gamers. The consensus here seems to be using containerized build environments.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Then why don't you build for Windows? Maybe I'm missing something

[–] lazyneet@programming.dev 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I do, but Linux should be a first-class platform alongside Windows.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Proton on Linux works pretty well. It might be easier for you to use bottles. As a Linux user I would rather use a complete Windows port than a half complete Linux port.

Kudos for the effort though

[–] lazyneet@programming.dev 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Thanks. In my experience, Wine and Proton don't work as well as native for one of the apps I'm building, so I will need to either build in a container or say "use X Ubuntu version".

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In that case go the Flatpak route. Best option would be to upload to Flathub.

[–] luciferofastora@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago

I've once had difficulties running some apps on Proton that used .NET features not supported by mono, which has been updated since then and is now working out of the box.

I'm playing Trackmania on wine, I've played Elden Ring and Monster Hunter: World on Proton, so I'm wondering which issue you're running into.

Regardless, building precompiled Linux native binaries is a commendable goal. Others have mentioned Flatpak, which imo is a good and user-friendly way to handle that.