I'm *trying* to assume good faith here, but I'm running out of energy to do so.
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 01:42:27AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: >On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 01:14, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote: > >> Incidentally, that remains true even if we only do that in distribution >> packages. I certainly have copied binaries from a Debian package to other >> Linux systems before for various reasons and expected them to run. Sure, >> this might not work for other reasons outside of our control, but that's >> no reason to be gratuitously incompatible by breaking the ABI, >> particularly for what seem to be annoyances of our own creation with known >> workarounds. > >Thanks, that's the first actual real example mentioned so far. And >it's an interesting one: taking a $random Debian package and using it >on a completely different, non-Debian system. Is that a supported use >case? If so, does that mean that I can go ahead and raise a Severity: >serious bug on any package that doesn't work in such a way? Russ has described copying *binaries* out of packages and running them elsewhere. I've done that too, from time to time. This is one of the things made possible by the ABI contract being followed. You are the one proposing to break that contract, thereby *guaranteeing* this will fail on systems where otherwise it could work. I think the onus is on *you* to justify why this is a valid and useful thing to do. Your apparent lack of care for agreed standards here is horrifying. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs." -- Mike Andrews
