Timeline for how to run new software without updating GLIBC?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 6, 2013 at 6:12 | comment | added | FooF | Updating glibc should theoretically and by backwards compatibility design of glibc be okay, but there is always risk – even if relatively minimal – of something changing, even breaking. As a special case, if this is a developer/test machine used to run or test a software that is later deployed to a equivalent production machine, then fixing a bug in libc that makes the software run correctly is a risk in preventing detection of problems. | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 5:53 | comment | added | FooF | @vonbrand - I tend to agree with your last comment. But I strongly disagree that updating libc or installing well known software (not "random package") is somehow comparable (assuming no evil intentions). We know very little about the nature of the environment and its users to voice any definitive opinion here. In software development machines (with many competent users), it could make sense to allow users run their own software. Sometimes it is plain necessity (OpenWRT and OpenEmbedded that target embedded platforms will build from sources some tools needed to build the f/w image). | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 5:28 | comment | added | vonbrand | @FooF, I've seen too many cases of "Administration knows best, let users do as they want with no support" to have illusions in this area. | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 4:08 | comment | added | FooF | @vonbrand - Nonsense, unless we are talking about some high security machine (and not for example some shared developer or testing machine/cluster) in which case you do need to have healthy paranoia about foreign unaudited software. In terms of random breakages, it is quite a different matter to update libc (affecting all the system, possibly causing system breakages) than just installing an isolated application program from trusted sources (I disagree with the notion that Mathematica is random package). Resource exhaustion of course is a valid concern that competent sysadmin should address. | |
| Jan 29, 2013 at 14:36 | comment | added | vonbrand | And you feel free to install some random package? The system administration policies are overdue to a serious revision. The library at the strange place could be picked up by random stuff, and ironing out the running of your application only (and possible processes started by it, that don't involve standard programs) could turn out quite a challenge... | |
| Jan 29, 2013 at 14:31 | comment | added | user15964 | but the problem is I am not the administrator, I don't have the authority. Even if I got the permission, I am afraid to do changes to the system, because that is not my computer,it is actually a cluster, many people works on it. By the way, why a new version in other place is risky? I only need to link the software I needed to new lib, not the whole system. | |
| Jan 29, 2013 at 13:23 | history | answered | vonbrand | CC BY-SA 3.0 |