Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1146771

Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited)

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

Hi,

Quoting Steve McIntyre (2023-05-15 02:54:02)
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:24:15AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> >On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 22:37, Josh Triplett <josh@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.

me and Luca have different ideas about how bootstrapping a Debian chroot should
look like and I don't want to make an argument *for* changing PT_INTERP here as
I think that keeping compatibility with others by following ABI is a good thing
and because I think (and hope -- but Helmut is doing that analysis right now)
that the debootstrap problem can be solved in a way I envision without changing
PT_INTERP. But what I do not understand about the argument against Luca's
proposal is:

Obviously, with Luca's proposal, binaries from packages built with a different
dynamic linker path in them would not work on distributions without merged-/usr
symlinks. But if the property of stuff from Debian being able to run on
non-Debian non-merged-/usr systems is an important one, then why was it okay to
have merged-/usr as the default? Because with merged-/usr we already changed
the interface contract for a lot of things because now binaries and libraries
can also be found at other locations than on non-merged-/usr systems. A script
with a /usr/bin/bash shebang built on and for Debian will not work on a system
without the symlinks.

So did we not years ago decide, that the result of the "cross- and
inter-project discussion" is, that everybody is going merged-/usr and that's
why we need it too and that's why it is okay to build a system where binaries
and scripts built for it just may not run on those other systems that do not do
it?  With merged-/usr we already *did* "change fundamental things around" for
reasons that are really not clear to me (but which i do not want to discuss
here) and as a result did not "care about interoperability" (with those who do
not also adopt it). In my own Debian work I so far only got extra work because
of merged-/usr and I do not see the benefits (yet) and I was hoping that
"changing fundamental things around Linux and (basically) not caring about
interoperability" was *not* Debian's attitude but alas here we are.

So have we not already burned the bridges to the non-merged-/usr world? Why was
it okay back then to say "we can make this change because all other important
players are doing merged-/usr so we can/have to as well". And now in the
PT_INTERP discussion somehow we care again about those systems? I thought we
already had the "cross- and inter-project discussion" about merged-/usr and
because the result was "yes, go for it" we did it too. But if that is the case,
why do we now care for a subset of the interoperability problems caused by
merged-/usr for systems that don't have it?

As I said, I don't care much about the PT_INTERP value but I don't understand
yet, why this argument about interoperability with non-merged-/usr systems is
working now but it didn't wasn't enough to stop another very fundamental change
in how we build a Linux distro.

Thanks!

cheers, josch

Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) (was: Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg) Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-05-11 00:00 +0200
  Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) (was: Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg) Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-05-11 00:50 +0200
    Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) (was: Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg) Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-05-18 19:30 +0200
  Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org> - 2023-05-11 12:40 +0200
  Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2023-05-11 14:30 +0200
    Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-11 20:00 +0200
      Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2023-05-12 14:30 +0200
        Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-12 15:10 +0200
    Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Matthew Vernon <matthew@debian.org> - 2023-05-25 14:10 +0200
  Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-05-12 07:50 +0200
    Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2023-05-12 10:50 +0200
      Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-12 12:00 +0200
        Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2023-05-12 12:50 +0200
          Re: Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-12 13:00 +0200
          Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2023-05-12 13:20 +0200
            Re: Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-12 14:20 +0200
              Re: Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems  (revisited) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2023-05-12 16:40 +0200
                Re: Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-12 17:40 +0200
              Re: Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 01:30 +0200
                Re: Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems  (revisited) Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> - 2023-05-15 02:10 +0200
                Re: Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 02:30 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 02:20 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 02:50 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2023-05-15 03:10 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 03:40 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 04:40 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 17:30 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-16 03:50 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2023-05-15 03:00 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <josch@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 07:00 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> - 2023-05-15 15:00 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 15:20 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> - 2023-05-15 18:00 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Matthew Vernon <matthew@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 18:20 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> - 2023-05-15 18:30 +0200
                Bug#1035904: What does merged /usr bring us Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 20:40 +0200
                Bug#1035904: What does merged /usr bring us Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 20:40 +0200
                Bug#1035904: What does merged /usr bring us Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 20:50 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 19:00 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2023-05-15 15:40 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 16:50 +0200
                Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 20:40 +0200
  Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2023-05-15 20:00 +0200
    Re: Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-16 04:00 +0200
      Re: Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems  (revisited) Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2023-05-16 10:30 +0200
        Re: Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-17 01:50 +0200
  Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> - 2023-05-17 22:50 +0200
  Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-05-18 20:00 +0200
    Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2023-05-18 20:20 +0200
      Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-05-18 20:30 +0200
        Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-18 20:40 +0200
          Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Matthias Klumpp <matthias@tenstral.net> - 2023-05-18 21:20 +0200
          Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Arnaud Rebillout <arnaudr@debian.org> - 2023-05-19 05:20 +0200
      Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2023-05-18 21:10 +0200
        Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2023-05-18 21:30 +0200
  Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-05-19 16:40 +0200
  Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) (was: Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg) Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> - 2023-05-21 16:30 +0200
    Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) (was: Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg) Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-05-21 17:00 +0200
  Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) (was: Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-21 17:00 +0200
  Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-06-07 06:40 +0200
  Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-06-13 21:20 +0200
    Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> - 2023-06-13 22:10 +0200
      Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-06-13 22:30 +0200

csiph-web