dpkg packaging problems

2015-01-02 Thread Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Hi folks, I'm just packaging some library to various deb distros using pbuilder + git-buildpackage. Unfortunately, the .so's loose the +x flag in the package (while usual 'make install' is okay) - it seems that some of the dh stuff drops that flag :( maybe some of you guys might have an idea ?

Re: dpkg packaging problems

2015-01-02 Thread Martin Pitt
Hello Enrico, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult [2015-01-02 16:52 +0100]: Unfortunately, the .so's loose the +x flag in the package (while usual 'make install' is okay) - it seems that some of the dh stuff drops that flag :( Yes, man dh_fixperms. Shared libraries don't need to and should not

Re: dpkg packaging problems

2015-01-02 Thread Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
On 02.01.2015 17:08, Martin Pitt wrote: Hi, Yes, man dh_fixperms. Shared libraries don't need to and should not be executable. Oh, wasn't aware of that. Just used to that as gcc sets that flag. Is it a bug in gcc, or are there platforms where +x is required ? cu -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT

Re: dpkg packaging problems

2015-01-02 Thread Colin Watson
On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 06:16:17PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: On 02.01.2015 17:08, Martin Pitt wrote: Yes, man dh_fixperms. Shared libraries don't need to and should not be executable. Oh, wasn't aware of that. Just used to that as gcc sets that flag. Is it a bug in

Re: dpkg packaging problems

2015-01-02 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Fri, 2015-01-02 at 18:16 +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: On 02.01.2015 17:08, Martin Pitt wrote: Hi, Yes, man dh_fixperms. Shared libraries don't need to and should not be executable. Oh, wasn't aware of that. Just used to that as gcc sets that flag. Is it a bug in