Re: Can we assume all chroots follow UsrMove?

* John Reiser: > For instance, I have a recipe for an "embedded" Docker > that will have to add the symlink. Interesting. Do you have public reference for it? Thanks, Florian -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe se

Re: Can we assume all chroots follow UsrMove?

On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:37 AM John Reiser wrote: > > > Is it safe to assume that this symbolic link [/lib64 -> usr/lib64] > > exists in all chroots? > > This includes the initial ramdisk, recovery environments, and chroots > > for confining services. > > It is unsafe unless prominently document

Re: Can we assume all chroots follow UsrMove?

Is it safe to assume that this symbolic link [/lib64 -> usr/lib64] exists in all chroots? This includes the initial ramdisk, recovery environments, and chroots for confining services. It is unsafe unless prominently documented in the places that are likely to be seen by affected developers, now

Re: Can we assume all chroots follow UsrMove?

On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 7:42 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > > A while back, we made /lib64 a symbolic link to /usr/lib64: > > > > Is it safe to assume that this symbolic link exists in all chroots? > This includes the initial ramdisk, recovery enviro

Can we assume all chroots follow UsrMove?

A while back, we made /lib64 a symbolic link to /usr/lib64: Is it safe to assume that this symbolic link exists in all chroots? This includes the initial ramdisk, recovery environments, and chroots for confining services. If we can assume that,