On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 11:57 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote: > On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 21:09:38 +1300 > Simon Geard <delga...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 23:15 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote: > > > Also, you may need to tweak your glibc check to work on systems that > > > don't have executable shared libraries. On my systems almost all shared > > > libraries (including /lib/libc.so.6) have permissions 644 so I get: > > > > Out of curiosity, why do you do things that way? It's certainly unusual; > > indeed, I always assumed .so files were required to be executable - > > otherwise why would every single distribution and installer make them > > so? > > > > I got the idea from Ubunut, where most of the .so files are 644.
Huh... so they do... never noticed that before. Ok, forget that "every single distribution" comment then... I guess some non-Linux (or non-glibc) systems must require (or have required) shared libraries to be executable, so that it's become a convention even where it's not necessary. I should try the experiment on some of the assorted AIX and HP-UX servers at work... Simon.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
