[Mageia-dev] executable libraries

Sat Mar 3 13:45:37 CET 2012

Le 02/03/2012 22:01, Per Øyvind Karlsen a écrit :
+> Den 21:51 2. mars 2012 skrev Maarten Vanraes<alien at rmail.be>  følgende:
+>> Op vrijdag 02 maart 2012 21:29:05 schreef Anssi Hannula:
+>>> 02.03.2012 21:57, Maarten Vanraes kirjoitti:
+>>>> Op vrijdag 02 maart 2012 15:22:23 schreef Anssi Hannula:
+>>>>> 02.03.2012 00:17, Maarten Vanraes kirjoitti:
+>>>>>> Op donderdag 01 maart 2012 23:05:35 schreef Anssi Hannula:
+>>>>>> [...]
+>>>>>>
+>>>>>>>> does this mean debug info fails for these?
+>>>>>>>
+>>>>>>> I'm not immediately sure (I never remember how the debug/stripping
+>>>>>>> stuff works exactly), but I think either a) debug symbols extraction
+>>>>>>> and thus -debug packaging, b) stripping, or c) both will fail with
+>>>>>>> non-executable shared libs.
+>>>>>>
+>>>>>> in that case i guess we would need a policy or bs check to make sure we
+>>>>>> don't fail some libraries debug and strip
+>>>>>
+>>>>> Possibly.
+>>>>>
+>>>>> Interestingly, Debian policy disallows executable permission on shared
+>>>>> libs:
+>>>>> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-
+>>>>> ru ntime
+>>>>>
+>>>>> "Shared libraries should not be installed executable, since the dynamic
+>>>>> linker does not require this and trying to execute a shared library
+>>>>> usually results in a core dump."
+>>>>
+>>>> which is sort of strange, since libc is actually executable by design.
+>>>>
+>>>> i see where they are coming from
+>>>>
+>>>> but i guess the first part of this is, why is there a find with
+>>>> executable restrictions for the code relating to stripped binaries and
+>>>> debug?
+>>>>
+>>>> is it because it's also used for real executables?
+>>>
+>>> I guess it is there just to speed up the process, otherwise it would
+>>> have to run 'file' for every file in the package (and many packages have
+>>> lots of files).
+>>
+>> still, it seems kind of weird, there are rpmlint checks for unstripped
+>> libraries, but i do have 34 libraries not marked as executable, while the
+>> stripping+ debug seems to target only executables?
+>>
+>> i wonder if we should make another check library unset as executable or even
+>> check what happened with these libraries not marked as executable?
+> I posted a link to a rpmlint patch implementing such a check to this thread two
+> hours ago.. :p
+I don't much point to a check, when a rpm-helper scriptlet would be able 
+to automatically enforce any given permission set.
+
+-- 
+Mines are equal opportunity weapons
+		-- Murphy's Military Laws n°55
+