Den 21:51 2. mars 2012 skrev Maarten Vanraes <[email protected]> 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
