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: > >> 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 the same downsides, as long as >> everyone agrees on a path. > >In practice it is not, though. There are other distributions that >change PT_INTERP for their own purposes, they've already been listed >in this thread. And I am still not hearing any concrete, factual use >case that would be impaired by such a change. I'm beginning to >seriously think there aren't any? Is that really the case?
The ABI has been agreed and set down in documentation that *just about* everybody has been following since its inception. This includes the most basic set of definitions of what an x86-64 program must look like, including the interpreter path. If this path is changed, then *at the most basic level* we'd be making programs that are not valid by the ABI we've agreed to. This is an *external interface contract*, not something we should ever consider changing without significant cross- and inter-project discussion. 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 for changing fundamental things around Linux and (basically) not caring about interoperability. That attitude is *not* Debian's. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James D. Nicoll
