In my testing I have only used LXC templates provided with pveam.
I have found oddities in the filesystem layout for some LXC templates from proxmox.
I have not tried all other templates but the ones where I have found the oddities are theese.
debian-10-standard_10.7-1_amd64.tar.gz
ubuntu-20.04-standard_20.04-1_amd64.tar.gz
ubuntu-20.10-standard_20.10-1_amd64.tar.gz
In all three of them the filesystem does not have symbolic links in the root folder.
But if I install a debian-10 from an iso to a VM the filesystem looks like this.
If I create a VM and install CentOS-8 from an iso and compare it with a LXC container from centos-8-default_20201210_amd64.tar.xz then there is no difference in the filesystem layout in this regard.
When I created a LXC container from debian-10-turnkey-syncthing_16.0-1_amd64.tar.gz the filesystem layout for /*bin and /lib* inside the container is the same as for a standard debian-10 installation.
My experience is that this oddity in the debian based LXC containers seem to breake things when packages are installed to the containers.
For instance:
In a standard debian installation the folders
The examples below is from a debian-10-standard_10.7-1_amd64.tar.gz container.
If a .deb package wants to create files in
So, are theese oddities intentional?
If yes. It would be very interesting if someone could explain the reason why the proxmox provided lxc-templates for debian should differ from a standard debian/ubuntu installation and why there is no such difference in the case of centos8 and debian-10 from turnkey?
If no. Maybe it would be easier to align the templates with the standard installations instead of fixing the .deb packages that does not handle this.
Best regards
Arto Diito
I have found oddities in the filesystem layout for some LXC templates from proxmox.
I have not tried all other templates but the ones where I have found the oddities are theese.
debian-10-standard_10.7-1_amd64.tar.gz
ubuntu-20.04-standard_20.04-1_amd64.tar.gz
ubuntu-20.10-standard_20.10-1_amd64.tar.gz
In all three of them the filesystem does not have symbolic links in the root folder.
Code:
root@testlxc:~# ls -ald /lib* /*bin
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Apr 25 2020 /bin
drwxr-xr-x 15 root root 4096 Apr 25 2020 /lib
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Apr 25 2020 /lib64
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Apr 25 2020 /sbin
But if I install a debian-10 from an iso to a VM the filesystem looks like this.
Code:
root@testvm:~$ ls -ald /*bin /lib*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jan 18 10:00 /bin -> usr/bin
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jan 18 10:00 /lib -> usr/lib
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Jan 18 10:00 /lib32 -> usr/lib32
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Jan 18 10:00 /lib64 -> usr/lib64
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jan 18 10:00 /libx32 -> usr/libx32
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Jan 18 10:00 /sbin -> usr/sbin
If I create a VM and install CentOS-8 from an iso and compare it with a LXC container from centos-8-default_20201210_amd64.tar.xz then there is no difference in the filesystem layout in this regard.
When I created a LXC container from debian-10-turnkey-syncthing_16.0-1_amd64.tar.gz the filesystem layout for /*bin and /lib* inside the container is the same as for a standard debian-10 installation.
My experience is that this oddity in the debian based LXC containers seem to breake things when packages are installed to the containers.
For instance:
In a standard debian installation the folders
/lib/systemd
and /usr/lib/systemd
have the same content and using either path will get the same result in both read and write operations. But that is not true in the odd filesystems. The examples below is from a debian-10-standard_10.7-1_amd64.tar.gz container.
If a .deb package wants to create files in
/usr/lib/systemd/system
that catalog does not exist because it can only be found in /lib/systemd/system
. And /lib/systemd/user
is also missing but can be found as /usr/lib/systemd/user
. So, are theese oddities intentional?
If yes. It would be very interesting if someone could explain the reason why the proxmox provided lxc-templates for debian should differ from a standard debian/ubuntu installation and why there is no such difference in the case of centos8 and debian-10 from turnkey?
If no. Maybe it would be easier to align the templates with the standard installations instead of fixing the .deb packages that does not handle this.
Best regards
Arto Diito