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?
