What problem are you trying to solve here.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Monday 2014-07-14 20:16, Toni Mueller wrote:
>>Hi Jan,
>>
>>On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 08:30:38PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> On Sunday 2014-07-13 13:07, Bob Beck wrote:
>>> >We have released an update, LibreSSL 2.0.1
>>> >As noted before, we welcome feedback from the broader community.
>>>
>>> Something that I have noticed is that the shared libraries generated
>>> by the portable libressl tarball are installed to their final
>>> location (in DESTDIR) with odd mode 644.
>>
>>what's odd about this mode? On my Debian box, I have, for the OpenSSL
>>lib:
>>$ l /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libssl.so.1.0.0
>>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 391928 Jun 15 13:36
>>/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libssl.so.1.0.0
>
> It is odd in that it deviates from standard practices.
> Only 4% of .so libraries in my /usr/lib64 have 644, the other 96
> have 755.
> Pristine libtool does not pass -m 644, and default (GNU) install
> defaults to mode 755 when not specifying anything else.
> glibc-ldd even thinks it wants to warn about it.
>
> 20:24 wrgstfl:~ > ldd /usr/lib64/libssl.so.27
> ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for
> `/usr/lib64/libssl.so.27'
> linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007fff4c3fe000)
> libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007ff5bca38000)
> /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007ff5bd069000)
>
> (Whatever the reason +x is set on libs, doing so is standard
> practice.)
>
