On May 17 2023, Andrea Pappacoda wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> first of all thank you for this great thread. While I could feel some tension
> while
> reading it, it's completely normal and I've learned a lot.
>
> I have a question though: if /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 is already a symlink
> on
>
Luca Boccassi writes:
> On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 01:05, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I do think the industry is moving away (well, has already moved away)
>> from Linux Standards Base pre-compiled C binaries without wrappers like
>> snap or flatpak, although there are some very notable exceptions, such
On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 01:05, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Luca Boccassi writes:
>
> > It does say something interesting. When we started, the assertion was
> > that packages not relying on the symlink being present was fundamental
> > for portability and cross-compatibility. Then, it shrinked to
> >
On 15/05/2023 19:00, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 23:37:34 +0200, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> People build things on Debian that are not Debian packages. People
>> compile binaries on Debian, and expect them to work on any system that
>> has sufficiently new libraries.
>
> *raises
Jeremy Stanley writes:
> Throwing another common one on the heap, similar to the previous Steam
> example, Python wheels with compiled extensions are often distributed on
> PyPI for a fictional "manylinux" platform which indicates they're
> intended to be usable on most GNU/Linux distributions
On 2023-05-16 17:05:25 -0700 (-0700), Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> Well, believe what you believe, but I literally do that daily, as
> does anyone else who regularly uses software from a Rust or Go
> ecosystem. Not a single work day goes by without me running, on
> some random Ubuntu or Red Hat or
Hi all,
first of all thank you for this great thread. While I could feel some
tension while reading it, it's completely normal and I've learned a lot.
I have a question though: if /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 is already a
symlink on non-merged-/usr systems, pointing to
Luca Boccassi writes:
> It does say something interesting. When we started, the assertion was
> that packages not relying on the symlink being present was fundamental
> for portability and cross-compatibility. Then, it shrinked to
> portability and cross-compatibility of a subset of packages.
On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 09:27, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 02:50:48 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > This sounds like a very interesting use case, and the first real one
> > mentioned, which is great to see - but I do not fully follow yet, from
> > what you are saying it seems
On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 04:22, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Luca Boccassi writes:
> > On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 16:18, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Note that we're not talking about complicated packages with lots of
> >> runtime like, say, Emacs. As I understand it your proposal wouldn't
> >> change
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> This has existed in a (now distant) past as the "Linux Distribution
> Checker", in the context of the Linux Standard Base, that Debian and
> Ubuntu stopped caring about in late 2015.
Ah, yes, thank you, that makes sense.
> I'm not aware of more recent efforts in
Le mardi, 16 mai 2023, 17.06:38 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit :
> I don't know if anyone has written an ABI compliance test for binaries.
> That sounds like something that would be in scope for the Linux Test
> Project, though, and it's possible their existing tests do some of this.
This has
James Addison writes:
> We've almost certainly all encountered limitations in upstream
> specifications and wondered when it's worth attempting a perceived
> improvement despite potential friction.
> If Debian did want/need to change the PT_INTERP path, is there a way to
> achieve that in both
On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 02:50:48 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> This sounds like a very interesting use case, and the first real one
> mentioned, which is great to see - but I do not fully follow yet, from
> what you are saying it seems to me that what you need is for your
> binaries to use the
On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 04:22, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > It did look like a veto to me. More importantly, isn't relying on
> > passersby to spot alleged harmful changes dangerous, especially for
> > undocumented, uncodified and untested use cases, like unspecified and
> > vague cross-compatibility
Hi Steve
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 02:01:15AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 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.
And nothing in that
I'm dropping the TC bug from this thread, since I don't think it has
anything to do with that discussion at this point. I probably should also
change the Subject line, but I'm keeping it to make it easier for the
people who want to tune out this thread, since I very much doubt they want
to tune
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 18:54, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 23:37:34 +0200, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > People build things on Debian that are not Debian packages. People
> > compile binaries on Debian, and expect them to work on any system that
> > has sufficiently new libraries.
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 16:18, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Luca Boccassi writes:
> > On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 02:26, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> (Also, no slight on the GUIX folks, but GUIX is not exactly an, uh,
> >> major player in Linux distributions, and I'm not sure how much they
> >> care about
On Mon, 15 May 2023 02:42:27 +0200,
Luca Boccassi wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 01:14, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > An obvious specific example of such a system would be one that didn't
> > merge /usr and thus only had /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 and not any other
> > path, but that's just one
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 06:48:04 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> Obviously, with Luca's proposal, binaries from packages built with a different
> dynamic linker path in them would not work on distributions without
> merged-/usr
> symlinks. But if the property of stuff from Debian
On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 23:37:34 +0200, Josh Triplett wrote:
> People build things on Debian that are not Debian packages. People
> compile binaries on Debian, and expect them to work on any system that
> has sufficiently new libraries.
*raises hand*
Hello, I represent an example of those people.
Luca Boccassi writes:
> On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 02:26, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> (Also, no slight on the GUIX folks, but GUIX is not exactly an, uh,
>> major player in Linux distributions, and I'm not sure how much they
>> care about compatibility with anyone else.)
> This is a counter-example to
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 14:36, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> Hey Johannes,
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 06:48:04AM +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
> wrote:
> >So did we not years ago decide, that the result of the "cross- and
> >inter-project discussion" is, that everybody is going merged-/usr
Hey Johannes,
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 06:48:04AM +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
wrote:
>Quoting Steve McIntyre (2023-05-15 02:54:02)
>>
>> Pointing at gentoo or nixos as examples of projects that have decided
>> to break compatibility doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. They're well known
>>
Hi,
Quoting Steve McIntyre (2023-05-15 02:54:02)
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:24:15AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> >On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 22:37, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
> >> The x86-64 ABI is set. Feel free to make the case to the next
> >> architecture designer that their new ABI should have
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 02:26, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Luca Boccassi writes:
>
> > That's self-evidently not true, as there are other distributions where
> > that already happens, it's been already mentioned.
>
> You've mentioned this a couple of times but I don't think I've seen the
> message
Luca Boccassi writes:
> That's self-evidently not true, as there are other distributions where
> that already happens, it's been already mentioned.
You've mentioned this a couple of times but I don't think I've seen the
message where the details were explained. Maybe this was only in your
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 wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, that remains true even if we only do that in distribution
>> packages. I certainly
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:24:15AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 22:37, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>> The x86-64 ABI is set. Feel free to make the case to the next
>> architecture designer that their new ABI should have the dynamic linker
>> in `/usr/lib`. That would *not* have
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 01:14, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Luca Boccassi writes:
>
> > Why would "software compiled on Debian" fail to work in other
> > environments? Well, there are many reasons actually, people invented
> > containers/flatpaks/snaps exactly for that reason. But nothing do with
> >
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 01:07, Peter Pentchev wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:24:15AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 22:37, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:11:38PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > > The loader is still available via the
Luca Boccassi writes:
> Why would "software compiled on Debian" fail to work in other
> environments? Well, there are many reasons actually, people invented
> containers/flatpaks/snaps exactly for that reason. But nothing do with
> anything discussed here though, as far as I can tell?
My
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:24:15AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 22:37, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:11:38PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > The loader is still available via the old path, so external/third
> > > party/local/other software works
On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 22:37, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:11:38PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > The loader is still available via the old path, so external/third
> > party/local/other software works unchanged. This should negatively
> > only affect our 1st party
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:11:38PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> The loader is still available via the old path, so external/third
> party/local/other software works unchanged. This should negatively
> only affect our 1st party packages, when running on a non-merged
> distro.
> And are _all_ our
On 2023-05-12 Ansgar wrote:
[...]
> The core issue as I see it is as follows:
[...]
> Do you think this summary of the issue is right?
I think Simon's reading of the situation as posted in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1035904#30
makes a lot of sense.
cu Andreas
--
`What a
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 15:30, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:11:38PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> >On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 12:08, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:40:05AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> >On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:49:32AM +0100,
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 03:29:29PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> >Oh holy fuck.
> So why the hell do you want to break this in the first place?
> You're wilfully missing the point, and you know it.
> I have better things to do than argue about this. I refuse to engage
> with this right now.
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:11:38PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 12:08, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:40:05AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:49:32AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>> >>On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 09:40, Steve
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 12:08, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:40:05AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:49:32AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> >>On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 09:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:40:00AM +0200,
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:40:05AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:49:32AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>>On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 09:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:40:00AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
>>> >
>>> >The core issue as I see it is as
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 11:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:49:32AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> >On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 09:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:40:00AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> >> >
> >> >The core issue as I see it is as follows:
>
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:49:32AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 09:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:40:00AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
>> >
>> >The core issue as I see it is as follows:
>> >
>> >- Debian has decided to support only merged-/usr, including
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 09:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:40:00AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> >
> >The core issue as I see it is as follows:
> >
> >- Debian has decided to support only merged-/usr, including possibly
> > moving /bin/sh to /usr/bin/sh or using
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:40:00AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
>
>The core issue as I see it is as follows:
>
>- Debian has decided to support only merged-/usr, including possibly
> moving /bin/sh to /usr/bin/sh or using /usr/lib*/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
> as the interpreter in binaries.
WTF? *Nobody*
On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 19:01 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 10 May 2023 at 11:47PM +02, Ansgar wrote:
> > Cool, then let's ask tech-ctte.
> >
> > Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to
> > include
> > the patch from #994388[1].
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ansgar
> >
> > [1]:
Hello,
On Wed 10 May 2023 at 11:47PM +02, Ansgar wrote:
> Cool, then let's ask tech-ctte.
>
> Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include
> the patch from #994388[1].
>
> Thanks,
> Ansgar
>
> [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/994388#397
This would require a new,
48 matches
Mail list logo
