On Fri, 03 Jan 2025 at 10:02:43 +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Hello committee members,
(I am no longer a TC member, but I'm still on the mailing list) > In particular, > systemd assigns a different link target [for /lib64] than base-files does If I was a TC member, the first question I would be asking is: what target? I believe base-files creates /lib64 -> usr/lib64. Correct? What conflicting symlink does systemd create under at least some circumstances? Is it /lib64 -> usr/lib? What architectures are affected by this? My reading of #1079329 is that it potentially affects any architecture that *does not* have its canonical/interoperable ld.so(8) path in /lib64, so in particular arm64 is usually affected (because arm64's canonical ld.so is /lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1, so there is no reason why a minimal arm64 system necessarily needs to contain /usr/lib64) but amd64 is not (because amd64's canonical ld.so is /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, so every working usr-merged amd64 system must already contain /usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2). If https://wiki.debian.org/ArchitectureSpecificsMemo is accurate, the loong64, mips64el, ppc64* and sparc64 architectures are in the same equivalence class as amd64 (/lib64 exists as ABI), and all other known official and -ports architectures are in the same equivalence class as arm64. smcv
