* 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.