Re: why are shared libs chmod +x? (again)
> > > Can someone tell me why shared libs should be installed executable?
> > > (Actually, Christoph Lameter wants to know this, cf. #7129, but since I
> > > don't know this either I'll redirect the question to this list.)
> > >
> > > This is current policy and I want to add a small note to the paragraph
> > > stating the reasons for this.
> And since we're basically recompiling all the libraries for 2.0, this would
> be a good time to make the change. If no one can provide a good reason for
> libraries being 755, I say we revert them to 644.
The only reason I remember is that the shared libraries are
"executed", only not from the commandline, but within other binaries.
joost witteveen, firstname.lastname@example.org
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .