On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 01:07, Peter Pentchev <r...@ringlet.net> wrote: > > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:24:15AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 22:37, Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> 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 packages, when running on a non-merged > > > > distro. > > > > And are _all_ our packages really 100% compatible with other distros > > > > at all? Are they even supposed to be? > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > This is *not* about Debian packages failing to work on other > > > distributions; this is about *software compiled on Debian* faliing to > > > work in other environments. > > > > 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? > > If an ELF executable, compiled on Debian, records its interpreter as > /usr/lib/ld-linux.so.2, what happens when one tries to run it on > a non-usr-merged system? Even one with a recent enough glibc version?
This is not about locally built ELF executables, no difference in those. Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
