On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 18:37:09 +0000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> On 26/02/2025 16:38, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > Re: Matthew Garrett
> > > B) The Technical Committee requests that base-files create an empty
> > ^^^^^^^^^^
> > > /usr/lib64 directory, even on architectures that do not use lib64. If
> > > systemd creates a symlink, this will then match the behaviour of
> > > base-files and avoid the issue (overrules the base-files maintainer,
> > ^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > I guess that should be "systemd"?
>
> No; the effect of this change would be that /usr/lib64 would always exist,
> so when systemd makes the /lib64 symlink, it will make it to /usr/lib64
> rather than /usr/lib; that creation of /lib64 -> /usr/lib is the problematic
> behaviour of systemd at the moment.
Specifically, systemd is already working fine on architectures where
/usr/lib64 is required to exist anyway (like amd64 and riscv64), and
the problematic behaviour only occurs on architectures where /usr/lib64
doesn't exist (like for example armel and i386). Option B would be a
way for base-files to nudge systemd into having the same behaviour on
the second category of architectures that it currently does on the first
category of architectures, without systemd code changes.
smcv
