>> This is true. AFAIK, the Debian policy is because those shared libraries
>> crash when some idiot tries to run them as programs.
>
> Why does that matter?
Some Debian maintainer(s) got tired of getting bug reports for this case.
> They [the users] run them notice the crash and learn from it.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> If we're going to make changes here I would really to see the heuristic
> for 2 changed from is it executable to does it live under /lib[64] or
> /usr/lib[64]. This will remove the need to add tons of provides filters
> to perl or python pac
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> So, I just ran into an interesting issue talking over Fedora patches
>> with the upstream glew maintainer. glew installs its shared libraries
>> 'manually', not using autotools / libtools; upstream installs them with
Hi,
On 03/28/2011 10:11 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 16:05 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
>> On 03/24/2011 02:49 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> On Thursday 24 March 2011, you wrote:
Hmm, I thought there'd be a catch. What's executable permission needed
for? Isn't t
>> Files which aren't executable aren't even considered as candidates for being
>> ELF files to extract debuginfo from.
>>
>> Without execute permission, you'd have to check EVERY SINGLE installed FILE
>> for being ELF, that might be a significant performance hit. It'd have to be
>> tried at least.
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 16:05 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 03/24/2011 02:49 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > On Thursday 24 March 2011, you wrote:
> >> Hmm, I thought there'd be a catch. What's executable permission needed
> >> for? Isn't that just reading/parsing? I can do some work but I am
> >>
On 03/24/2011 02:49 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> On Thursday 24 March 2011, you wrote:
>> Hmm, I thought there'd be a catch. What's executable permission needed
>> for? Isn't that just reading/parsing? I can do some work but I am
>> totally unfamiliar with this area.
>
> Files which aren't executable
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I wonder if it would be possible to fix the kernel so that running a shared
> library does not crash, but give a meaningful error message, and if Debian
> would change their policy then.
As far as the kernel is concerned, these shared libraries are executable, can
be pars
Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> Sorry I was being too tentative. I meant to point out that the 755 perms
> don't seem to do anything useful (except possibly for ld.so, which I
> still don't quite understand what it is), and have definite negative
> effects (abrt noise). Therefore, I was going to suggest
Adam Williamson wrote:
> So, I just ran into an interesting issue talking over Fedora patches
> with the upstream glew maintainer. glew installs its shared libraries
> 'manually', not using autotools / libtools; upstream installs them with
> permissions of 0644, and we patch this to 0755. After tal
On 03/24/2011 12:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> FWIW, on my F14 all the .so libs in /lib are executable, and all but
>> three segfault (and trigger abrt) when executed. Besides the already
>> mentioned libc-2.13.so and ld-2.13.so, only libpthread-2.13.so
>> runs successfully to print a legal not
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 11:59 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 03/24/2011 03:28 AM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > On 03/24/2011 06:52 AM, John Reiser wrote:
> >>> they say on Debian and Ubuntu,
> >>> all shared libs have 0644 permissions.
> >>
> >> What they say is incorrect.
> >>
> >> I have Ubuntu
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:31:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
> > So, is it true that the convention is 0644 in Debian and 0755 in Red
> > Hat-land? If so, does anyone know why the difference, and if this needs
> > to stay different forever? Also, I presume neither of us is p
On 03/24/2011 03:28 AM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On 03/24/2011 06:52 AM, John Reiser wrote:
>>> they say on Debian and Ubuntu,
>>> all shared libs have 0644 permissions.
>>
>> What they say is incorrect.
>>
>> I have Ubuntu 10.10 i686:
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1421892 2011-01-21 15:08 /lib/libc-2.1
On 03/24/2011 06:52 AM, John Reiser wrote:
>> they say on Debian and Ubuntu,
>> all shared libs have 0644 permissions.
>
> What they say is incorrect.
>
> I have Ubuntu 10.10 i686:
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1421892 2011-01-21 15:08 /lib/libc-2.12.1.so
[...snip more libc examples...]
libc is prob
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:52:24PM -0700, John Reiser wrote:
> > they say on Debian and Ubuntu,
> > all shared libs have 0644 permissions.
>
> What they say is incorrect.
Well, given that libc.so and ld.so are shared libraries with
with meaningful e_entry, so you can actually run
/lib/ld-2.*.so
> they say on Debian and Ubuntu,
> all shared libs have 0644 permissions.
What they say is incorrect.
I have Ubuntu 10.10 i686:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1421892 2011-01-21 15:08 /lib/libc-2.12.1.so
I have Ubuntu 10.4 x86_64:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1405508 2011-01-21 14:25 /lib32/libc-2.11.1.so
-r
2011/3/24 Adam Williamson :
> So, I just ran into an interesting issue talking over Fedora patches
> with the upstream glew maintainer. glew installs its shared libraries
> 'manually', not using autotools / libtools; upstream installs them with
> permissions of 0644, and we patch this to 0755. Afte
Adam Williamson writes:
> So, is it true that the convention is 0644 in Debian and 0755 in Red
> Hat-land? If so, does anyone know why the difference, and if this needs
> to stay different forever? Also, I presume neither of us is patching
> several thousand shared library packages for this, so ar
19 matches
Mail list logo
