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

Reply via email to