On Mon, 15 May 2023 02:42:27 +0200, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 01:14, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote: > > > An obvious specific example of such a system would be one that didn't > > merge /usr and thus only had /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 and not any other > > path, but that's just one obvious example. There may be others; the whole > > point of an ABI is that you do not change things like this, not even if > > you can't personally imagine why your change wouldn't be harmful. There's > > a whole process for changing an ABI that involves everyone else agreeing > > as well, and unless one goes through that process, the ABI is what it is. > > Debian not building ABI-compliant binaries would be highly surprising. > > That's self-evidently not true, as there are other distributions where > that already happens, it's been already mentioned. Besides, we are not > talking about sacred religious texts - the point is making things > work. If they do, is it _really_ non-compliant/incompatible?
The point of a standard is definitely not that people ignore it and do things that are in direct contradiction with the standard. The point of a standard is that people agree on a specification and will also follow that specification. Something working and something being compliant are different concepts. Software can be compliant and not working and software can also be non-compliant and working. Something that is in direct contradiction with a standard is definitely non-compliant. Whether it works or not is not relevant for that. Kind regards, Jeroen Dekkers
