Greg Schafer wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Does anyone know why shared libraries need the execute bit set on them?
AFAICT they don't need it (except of course libc.so.6 and ld-linux.so.2).
Debian ship a whole distro with the shared libs all 644 (apart from those
2 aforementioned libs).
My
On 8/23/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks.
>
> Does anyone know why shared libraries need the execute bit set on them?
> My most recent build (gcc4-based) has most[1] *.so files installed
> with 755 permissions. As it's so consistent, I'm assuming there is a
> reason for
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Does anyone know why shared libraries need the execute bit set on them?
AFAICT they don't need it (except of course libc.so.6 and ld-linux.so.2).
Debian ship a whole distro with the shared libs all 644 (apart from those
2 aforementioned libs).
IMHO the current practice
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 08/22/05 15:06 CST:
>>[1] Exceptions being: /lib/libproc-3.2.5.so (555), /usr/lib/libc.so (644),
>>/usr/lib/libpthread.so (644), /usr/lib/preloadable_libintl.so (644), and
>>Perl's modules (555)
>
> /usr/lib/lib{c,pthread}.so aren't libraries, they are ld scrip
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote:
Hi folks.
Does anyone know why shared libraries need the execute bit set on them? My
most recent build (gcc4-based) has most[1] *.so files installed with 755
permissions. As it's so consistent, I'm assuming there is a reason for them
to be execut
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Hi folks.
>
> Does anyone know why shared libraries need the execute bit set on them?
> My most recent build (gcc4-based) has most[1] *.so files installed with
> 755 permissions. As it's so consistent, I'm assuming there is a reason
> for them to be executable. Thanks t
