Re: Is there still a point in installing libgcrypt to /lib instead of /usr/lib
* Ansgar:
> On Wed, 2020-02-19 at 09:39 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 09:31:51 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> > I agree that what Guillem is proposing also does not have the property,
>> > which I think is one that is important to you?, that the contents of the
>> > root directory are decoupled from /usr (can be set up by an initramfs
>> > or a container-runner, perhaps in a tmpfs, without detailed knowledge
>> > of the OS installation in /usr).
>>
>> Or perhaps Guillem is intending that in n years' time, when no package
>> in Debian (not even libc6!) ships files in /bin /sbin /lib* in its
>> data.tar.*, *then* the maintainer-script-maintained symlink farms in /bin
>> /sbin /lib* can be replaced by symlinks bin -> usr/bin, etc., without
>> this resulting in anything dpkg-managed being overwritten or aliased?
>>
>> If that's the case, then we get that desirable property *eventually* under
>> this proposal, but not any time soon.
>
> As far as I know the path `/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2` is part of the
> ABI (and similar paths on other architectures). So that will have to
> exist unless we break the ABI. Therefore I assume this is unlikely to
> happen.
It doesn't have to be written to the file system under that name. The
only thing that is required is that the kernel can open the dynamic
linker under the ABI-mandated pathname.
Reply to: