Try building Python statically on Linux.

[dumol]

Currently, Linux packages are built against either glibc or musl libc libraries.

Building statically against the libc library would have two main benefits:

1. only one Linux package for arch
2. a more modern toolchain could be used for building (currently we build on Amazon Linux 2 for glibc-based distributions).

Starting point: https://wiki.python.org/moin/BuildStatically.

Other pointers:

• https://generalpurposeio.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/compiling-python-and-libpython-statically-using-musl-libc/
• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1150373/compile-the-python-interpreter-statically/1155092
• https://github.com/python-cmake-buildsystem/python-cmake-buildsystem

[adiroiban]

I am not sure if having static glibc on Alpine / musl does not defeat the purpose of having a musl based environment in the first place.

Also... we need to see the depenencies between linux kernels and glibc / musl versions

[dumol]

A more powerful way, which would also enable easy cross-compiling: https://andrewkelley.me/post/zig-cc-powerful-drop-in-replacement-gcc-clang.html

[dumol]

I am not sure if having static glibc on Alpine / musl does not defeat the purpose of having a musl based environment in the first place.

Was actually thinking of building statically against musl, which seems to be more straightforward. Building statically against glibc is frown upon, I remember this: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/57476533/why-is-statically-linking-glibc-discouraged