Re: [E-devel] ERROR: file '/usr/bin/Eterm' contains a standard rpath '/usr/lib' in [/usr/lib:/ usr/lib/Eterm] on FC4

[Michael J. <e-...@ka...>]

On Thursday, 01 September 2005, at 14:39:22 (+0800),
Didier Casse wrote:

> This is provided from Ville Skytt=E4 author of the fedora-rpmdevtools---
> But the author of the check-rpath sript is Enrico Scholz
> <enr...@in...>. Maybe we should ask him
> too.

Enrico and I have some very fundamental differences of opinion when it
comes to such matters, so I'll just leave it at that. :)

> Mind you, the case of "standard library paths" in RPATH is the least
> severe "error" detected by check-rpaths.  What's more useful in it in
> general are the checks for RPATHS that might cause security problems
> (empty RPATHs, buildroot remainders etc).

Yes, those are the real problems.  The "standard library path" thing
should be a warning, not an error, IMHO.

> As far as I can tell, standard paths like /usr/lib in RPATH are
> mainly of academic interest and the cases where they'd bite are very
> rare in practice.

I sure can't think of any, and the examples on that Debian page were
very much on crack.

> But if they don't add any value whatsoever on our platform (and can
> at least theoretically be harmful), why not just get rid of them?

If you can auto-fix them, I agree 100%.  But considering a package
"broken" because there's a 0.0000000000000000001% probability that
Bubba down in Antarctica will encounter a problem is just silly IMHO.

But I've already given the okay for the patch, so I'll let it go. :)

Michael

-- 
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  <me...@ka...>
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/       Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 "But what better way to go out than in the cause of advancing
  scientific knowledge?"  "Is this a multiple choice question? 'cause
  I have some ideas...."
                     -- Jim Ishida and Claudia Christian, Babylon Five