Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bug#830913: debian-policy: Allow amd64 systems without /lib64
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Russ Allbery
Sep 19, 2022, 1:00:03 AM9/19/22
to
Javier Serrano Polo <jav...@jasp.net> writes:
> Some amd64 systems do not have /lib64, although they can run programs
> with the interpreter set to /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 . It would be
> nice if Debian could allow such systems. In section 9.1.1, where it
> says:
> The execution time linker/loader, ld*, must still be made
> available in the existing location under /lib or /lib64
> "must" should be "should".
You reported the above bug six years ago, and it looks like it never
received a reply. I'm sorry about that!
I'm confused by this bug report, though. What does "some amd64 systems"
mean in this context? It looks to me like the amd64 libc6 package
provides /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, so a Debian amd64 system would
satisfy this. Is there some alternate libc6 package available in Debian
that does things differently? Or are you thinking of some sort of
container or other type of restricted system?
Also, in this case, how does this work? Is the path somehow remapped at
the kernel level? (If so, I'm wondering if that would qualify as "made
available" for the purposes of Policy anyway.)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
> Some amd64 systems do not have /lib64, although they can run programs
> with the interpreter set to /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 . It would be
> nice if Debian could allow such systems. In section 9.1.1, where it
> says:
> The execution time linker/loader, ld*, must still be made
> available in the existing location under /lib or /lib64
> "must" should be "should".
You reported the above bug six years ago, and it looks like it never
received a reply. I'm sorry about that!
I'm confused by this bug report, though. What does "some amd64 systems"
mean in this context? It looks to me like the amd64 libc6 package
provides /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, so a Debian amd64 system would
satisfy this. Is there some alternate libc6 package available in Debian
that does things differently? Or are you thinking of some sort of
container or other type of restricted system?
Also, in this case, how does this work? Is the path somehow remapped at
the kernel level? (If so, I'm wondering if that would qualify as "made
available" for the purposes of Policy anyway.)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russ Allbery
Sep 10, 2023, 2:20:04 PM9/10/23
to
Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes:
> It's now been about a year and it looks like this message didn't get a
> reply, so I'm going to go ahead and close this bug because I don't think
> we have enough information to act on it. If there are more details
> about my questions above, feel free to open it.
For the sake of the record on this now-closed bug, I got a reply from
Javier Serrano Polo asking if I had received a message related to this bug
last year. I don't remember receiving one, and it's not present in the
BTS. I attempted to reply to that message saying so, but the jasp.net
mail server rejected my mail message with the following bounce message:
<javier--J3TYas0zMad...@jasp.net>: host
www.jasp.net[84.126.37.22] said: 550-The message does not meet the trust
level of one recipient at least 550-See
http://www.jasp.net/smtp/trust.xhtml 550 Administrative prohibition (in
reply to end of DATA command)
I don't think this changes anything about the original analysis, so I'm
leaving this bug closed, but I wanted to clarify my last message;
apparently there is some communication blockage here.
> It's now been about a year and it looks like this message didn't get a
> reply, so I'm going to go ahead and close this bug because I don't think
> we have enough information to act on it. If there are more details
> about my questions above, feel free to open it.
For the sake of the record on this now-closed bug, I got a reply from
Javier Serrano Polo asking if I had received a message related to this bug
last year. I don't remember receiving one, and it's not present in the
BTS. I attempted to reply to that message saying so, but the jasp.net
mail server rejected my mail message with the following bounce message:
<javier--J3TYas0zMad...@jasp.net>: host
www.jasp.net[84.126.37.22] said: 550-The message does not meet the trust
level of one recipient at least 550-See
http://www.jasp.net/smtp/trust.xhtml 550 Administrative prohibition (in
reply to end of DATA command)
I don't think this changes anything about the original analysis, so I'm
leaving this bug closed, but I wanted to clarify my last message;
apparently there is some communication blockage here.
Edward Little
Sep 10, 2023, 9:20:05 PM9/10/23
to
Please remove the following email address: e.lit...@gmail.com
0 new messages