On 2018-01-26 19:05, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> X-Debbugs-CC: cl...@debian.org, adcon...@0c3.net, m...@suse.de, j...@suse.cz,
> a...@suse.de
>
> El dv 26 de 01 de 2018 a les 08:39 +0100, Andreas Jaeger va escriure:
> > No, this is not possible - it would break binary compatibility. The path
> > is hardcoded into each binary and if you change it, your application
> > will not run anywhere else,
>
> It would be nice if you answered the question about appendix A.1.
>
> So, we have five people who state or imply that either my amd64 systems
> do not exist or they are unavoidably incompatible with systems depending
> on a /lib64 directory.
We never said that your system doesn't exist. We said you have to
rebuild all binaries to get of /lib64. It's what your package shows:
$ readelf -e hello-nolib64 | grep interpret
[Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2]
> My systems obviously exist. To the claim that I cannot run a /lib64
> program without rebuilding, the answer is easy to say: try my system.
> To the claim that applications from my system will not run anywhere
> else, I can provide a counterexample: you can install the attached
> package.
Your package provides a /lib64 library, which is exactly what you want
to avoid. The binary alone doesn't work, which is exactly my point.
> Would you accept the evidence? Is /lib64 still a mistake or rather a
> maintainer's choice?
/lib64 is being compatible with everybody in both directions, you like
it or not. Your system is not compatible with others. We do not want
that.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
