Shared library permissions
b3nt at ukonline.co.uk
Sat Nov 5 15:15:12 PST 2005
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote these words on 11/05/05 14:23 CST:
>> On the BIND-9.3.1 server page there is a long instruction to chmod the installed shared libraries to 755 and the explanation given is that "Libtool does not set the permissions for these libraries correctly"...But libtool sets the permissions to 644. How is that not correct? Why do shared libraries need to be executable? Why go to the trouble of "fixing" something that isn't broken?
> This has come up before. I'm sure you can find the answer to your
> question if you search the archives.
No, it doesn't. The conclusion of this thread
seems to be that shared libraries don't need to be executable, it's just
a historical quirk. This doesn't explain why BLFS fixes something that
More information about the blfs-dev