On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Alan W. Irwin <ir...@beluga.phys.uvic.ca> wrote: > On 2011-08-13 14:43-0400 Hezekiah M. Carty wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Alan W. Irwin >> <ir...@beluga.phys.uvic.ca> wrote: >>> >>> On 2011-08-12 16:47-0600 Orion Poplawski wrote: >>> >>>> On 08/12/2011 12:30 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Hez: >>>>> >>>>> To follow up on the recent permission bits thread with Andrew I have >>>>> made this installed ocaml stublibs change as of revision 11880 to make >>>>> all our installed shared objects consistently drop the execution >>>>> permission bits. >>>>> >>>>> The result of "make install" on my system is as follows: >>>>> >>>>> software@raven> ls -l >>>>> /home/software/plplot_svn/installcmake/lib/ocaml/3.11.2/stublibs/ >>>>> total 148 >>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 software software 6240 Aug 12 11:09 dllplcairo_stubs.so >>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 software software 136378 Aug 12 11:09 dllplplot_stubs.so >>>> >>>> Just a warning here - on Fedora rpm looks for executable so's to >>>> automatically determine library dependencies. So this might have a >>>> negative >>>> impact there. >>> >>> These are shared objects that are optionally dlopened at run time >>> depending ultimately on user actions rather than libraries which are >>> automatically loaded at run time by the run-time loader. So these >>> .so's depend on libraries, but nothing else depends directly on them. >>> >> >> I'm not sure of the reason, but every other system I've seen seems to >> keep the executable bits set on these dll*.so. I'm not sure what kind >> of effects removing the executable bits will have. > > Is that really true for your system? (IIRC, you have ubuntu installed, > and I assume that distro would follow Debian in this regard.) > > Here is what is done for equivalent files (I assume) on Debian Squeeze: > > irwin@raven> ls -l /usr/lib/ocaml/*/*.so > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 19328 Oct 5 2010 > /usr/lib/ocaml/stublibs/dllbigarray.so <snip> > Do you have a different result on your system? >
I do have different results, but I am using a source-based install of OCaml, not the Ubuntu/Debian packages. If the other official OCaml Debian packages do not have the execute bit set for their dll*.so files then it makes sense to follow their lead. Fedora may have a different dependency resolution scheme, so I don't know the impact there. > @Andrew when you are back in e-mail contact. Currently, you are using > a versioned install location for PLplot OCaml stublibs, e.g., > > irwin@raven> ls -l /usr/lib/ocaml/*/*/*.so > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4256 Aug 11 11:06 > /usr/lib/ocaml/3.11.2/stublibs/dllplcairo_stubs.so > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 111424 Aug 11 11:06 > /usr/lib/ocaml/3.11.2/stublibs/dllplplot_stubs.so > > And PLplot upstream is doing the same. Should your Debian packages > (and/or PLplot upstream) change to the unversioned install location? > I think I read something about this ... Debian recently (within the last few years?) changed from versioned to unversioned paths for OCaml libraries. I think it makes sense to follow Debian's lead here again, as I think Fedora also avoids versioned directories. Hez ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FREE DOWNLOAD - uberSVN with Social Coding for Subversion. Subversion made easy with a complete admin console. Easy to use, easy to manage, easy to install, easy to extend. Get a Free download of the new open ALM Subversion platform now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Plplot-devel mailing list Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel
