* Dmitry V. Levin: >> So, I don't think the code is wrong. We might want to tweak the comment >> a bit though, to make it less definitive? > > What I'm saying is that has_soname is just a hint which is probably even > less reliable than has_program_interpreter.
If I recall correctly, I added the soname check to classify /lib64/libc.so.6 as a library, not an executable. So it didn't come completely out of nowhere. Thanks, Florian
