On Monday 2014-07-14 20:16, Toni Mueller wrote:
>Hi Jan,
>
>On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 08:30:38PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Sunday 2014-07-13 13:07, Bob Beck wrote:
>> >We have released an update, LibreSSL 2.0.1
>> >As noted before, we welcome feedback from the broader community.
>>
>> Something that I have noticed is that the shared libraries generated
>> by the portable libressl tarball are installed to their final
>> location (in DESTDIR) with odd mode 644.
>
>what's odd about this mode? On my Debian box, I have, for the OpenSSL
>lib:
>$ l /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libssl.so.1.0.0
>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 391928 Jun 15 13:36
>/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libssl.so.1.0.0
It is odd in that it deviates from standard practices.
Only 4% of .so libraries in my /usr/lib64 have 644, the other 96
have 755.
Pristine libtool does not pass -m 644, and default (GNU) install
defaults to mode 755 when not specifying anything else.
glibc-ldd even thinks it wants to warn about it.
20:24 wrgstfl:~ > ldd /usr/lib64/libssl.so.27
ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for
`/usr/lib64/libssl.so.27'
linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007fff4c3fe000)
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007ff5bca38000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007ff5bd069000)
(Whatever the reason +x is set on libs, doing so is standard
practice.)
