|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Message-ID: <202011281443.0ASEhjGT022090@hedwig.cmf.nrl.navy.mil> From: Ken Hornstein <kenh@cmf.nrl.navy.mil> To: krbdev@mit.edu In-Reply-To: <202011280709.0AS79Aao034028@slippy.cwsent.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 09:43:44 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu >Expect the same from your downstream Linux distros. Gratuitous tickets rob >support staff time from more productive work. That costs money. I work with >this in mind at $JOB. I have the same attitude with my open source >projects. Gratuitous tickets rob time from more fun programming activities. Russ already brought up that my original post on this subject made the point that having the shared libraries be executable is pretty much a requirement on RPM-based systems, and Debian enforces their policy of NOT having executable shared libraries in their default packaging scripts. I'm unaware of what other platforms official stance is on this topic, but it seems like there's not a unifying standard. Like I said previously, I have no opinion on WHAT the executable bit should be for shared libraries. But it seems that the default toolchains make shared libraries executable by default at creation time and things like Automake/libtool end up installing shared libraries with the execute bit set, and somehow the world hasn't been overwhelmed in an avalanche of support tickets because users are trying to directly execute shared libraries. --Ken _______________________________________________ krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |