this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
76 points (93.2% liked)
Technology
87685 readers
2686 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So what’s wrong with just releasing a monolithic static binary for each architecture you want to run it on?
I read the post, and it sounds like what the author did in the end. I just don’t get why it was the last thing he tried. I don’t get why Linux software packaging has to be so complex.
Release engineering works on something that has only recently been codified into a SLSA scale. At the top end is nixos and their very firm validation of code all the way along the supply chain.
At the bottom of the scale, a SLSA score of 0, is "here's a monolithic binary I found on the website of someone on the interwebs. Even though we don't know how it was built, nor can we reproduce it or confirm it's what he built or look at any of the parts to see whether the statically-linked libraries are now at-risk, let's just run that."
You ... do see how irresponsible that is on every level, right?
Like, 20 years ago I dropped a patch in for Apache, and these days I manage reams of machines using apache, sendmain, winbind, nginx, postfix, etc; to manage those without a proper infrastructure is absolute madness.