Our security department invented a corporate Linux distro and now ships it with laptops to new hires. Except it's based on Ubuntu 22.04 and that's too old to run half of the software we need. Everyone...
@Listens to Baroque while coding murder.exe :newt: I've had that kind of experience in a previous workplace, where the IT department decided to force upgrade our 18.XX to 20.XX. Except our software couldn't even build on 20.XX. I found a workaround by scooping in the IT departments files the modified 18.XX iso and making a docker image out of it we can at least work.
Another fun story is _why_ we couldn't build on 20.XX. One step of our build was about parsing C header files using this piece of software called "gcc-xml", and reusing its output to generate python FFI files. Except this would fail very bizarely on 20.XX. After a whole day of digging, it looked like it wasn't behaving properly with certain flags. I asked myself "is there a version mismatch somewhere?". Running "gcc-xml --version" gave me an output along the line of "CastXML vX.X.X".
Ubuntu repositories had entirely removed gcc-xml, and replaced by another software called CastXML. Except the package was still called gcc-xml, and the binary too.
What's great is that CastXML is supposed to be backward compatible, but the reality is thats it is NOT AT ALL backward compatible, most of the flags and options being completely unavailable (at the time).
This made me stumble in one of my favorite comment on github, by someone that had the same problems than me.
> I guess I just don't understand the purpose of a backwards-compatibility mode that isn't actually backwards compatible
https://github.com/CastXML/CastXML/issues/84#issuecomment-272968140
Another fun story is _why_ we couldn't build on 20.XX. One step of our build was about parsing C header files using this piece of software called "gcc-xml", and reusing its output to generate python FFI files. Except this would fail very bizarely on 20.XX. After a whole day of digging, it looked like it wasn't behaving properly with certain flags. I asked myself "is there a version mismatch somewhere?". Running "gcc-xml --version" gave me an output along the line of "CastXML vX.X.X".
Ubuntu repositories had entirely removed gcc-xml, and replaced by another software called CastXML. Except the package was still called gcc-xml, and the binary too.
What's great is that CastXML is supposed to be backward compatible, but the reality is thats it is NOT AT ALL backward compatible, most of the flags and options being completely unavailable (at the time).
This made me stumble in one of my favorite comment on github, by someone that had the same problems than me.
> I guess I just don't understand the purpose of a backwards-compatibility mode that isn't actually backwards compatible
https://github.com/CastXML/CastXML/issues/84#issuecomment-272968140
1