Could Lumo not depend on glibc ? about lumo HOT 6 OPEN

Hum, interesting. Why is the docker image required, if you've managed to statically link and build Lumo with musl? Shouldn't it now be a self-contained binary?

It is but you build it yourself by pointing at lumo's folder, for now it is not provided as part of lumo's binaries.

Maybe it should indeed?

from lumo.

Or in my case, could it be made to support GLIBC as old as 2.12 ?

from lumo.

I have had the same problem and ended up working on a musl static mini-project (I have posted the results in here.

It was targeted at a AWS lumo layer but can be of course used just for compiling the binary.

from lumo.

Also the problem is not really lumo here but node

from lumo.

Hum, interesting. Why is the docker image required, if you've managed to statically link and build Lumo with musl? Shouldn't it now be a self-contained binary?

Also, when you say the issue is Node, what I find strange is that I am able to get Node installed and working? So it would appear to me Node can happily run with an even older GLIBC ?

from lumo.

Would this be solved by #374? It proposes to ship the pre-nexe compiled-js of lumo. That way people could run the lumo.js directly using their own nodejs binary.

from lumo.