[Mageia-dev] executable libraries

[Per Øyvind Karlsen]

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

--
Regards,
Per Øyvind