Will get to the rest later tonight, two quick points: On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 09:58, Helmut Grohne <hel...@subdivi.de> wrote: > > But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the > > default option working best for Debian is the one that matches the > > project's choice of a filesystem layout. After all, this is > > configurable in the toolchain for a reason. > > And the vast majority of the rest of the world has long since finished > > this transition, so I struggle to think where software built with this > > default wouldn't work. Bullseye will be oldoldstable at that point, > > and even that was default merged for new installations, and really old > > ones (oldoldoldoldstable at that point? I lost count) will be long > > EOL. I suppose they could still be around unmaintained, but who uses a > > toolchain from 8 years in the future to build software for an EOL > > distribution 8 years in the past? Normally it's the other way around, > > as even glibc adds new symbols and is not forward compatible. > > This seems somewhat convincing to me. Would you reach out to toolchain > maintainers to discuss this as an early change after the release of > bookworm?
Have done so now via the gcc mailing list. > > On the ELF interpreter, as long as we can reasonably ensure it works, > > I do believe we should switch it, regardless of what we do with the > > symlinks, how we ship/add/build/package/create/manage them, as a > > desired final state. Again, we should make the default in Debian work > > for Debian. And given the default for Debian from Bookworm onward is > > that the loader is in /usr/lib/, it seems perfectly reasonable to me > > that it software built for Debian and shipped in Debian should look > > there for it. > > I suppose that we've been confusing the different approaches here. The > question of what links base-files should contain mostly arises if you > start from the assumption that we do not modify the ELF interpreter > location. Once changing its (and /bin/sh's) location, the question of > how to install those symlinks can indeed be done in base-files.postinst > or at some other place where dpkg doesn't have to know much about it > indeed. Would you agree to examine the approach where we don't modify > the ELF interpreter location in parallel as a backup plan? Yeah we definitely should do that. I think we should separate a bit long-term vs short-term on that front, as it will help reach a conclusion more quickly. I think that aspect is easy to revise, and shouldn't lock us in a particular position one way or the other. Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
