Re: [Plplot-devel] Execution bits dropped for OCaml shared objects installed in stublibs

[Andrew R. <and...@us...>]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 06:30:50PM -0400, Hezekiah M. Carty wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Alan W. Irwin
> <ir...@be...> wrote:
> > On 2011-08-13 14:43-0400 Hezekiah M. Carty wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Alan W. Irwin
> >> <ir...@be...> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2011-08-12 16:47-0600 Orion Poplawski wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 08/12/2011 12:30 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Hez:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To follow up on the recent permission bits thread with Andrew I have
> >>>>> made this installed ocaml stublibs change as of revision 11880 to make
> >>>>> all our installed shared objects consistently drop the execution
> >>>>> permission bits.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The result of "make install" on my system is as follows:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> software@raven> ??ls -l
> >>>>> /home/software/plplot_svn/installcmake/lib/ocaml/3.11.2/stublibs/
> >>>>> total 148
> >>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 software software ?? 6240 Aug 12 11:09 dllplcairo_stubs.so
> >>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 software software 136378 Aug 12 11:09 dllplplot_stubs.so
> >>>>
> >>>> Just a warning here - on Fedora rpm looks for executable so's to
> >>>> automatically determine library dependencies. ??So this might have a
> >>>> negative
> >>>> impact there.
> >>>
> >>> These are shared objects that are optionally dlopened at run time
> >>> depending ultimately on user actions rather than libraries which are
> >>> automatically loaded at run time by the run-time loader. ??So these
> >>> .so's depend on libraries, but nothing else depends directly on them.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm not sure of the reason, but every other system I've seen seems to
> >> keep the executable bits set on these dll*.so. ??I'm not sure what kind
> >> of effects removing the executable bits will have.
> >
> > Is that really true for your system? ??(IIRC, you have ubuntu installed,
> > and I assume that distro would follow Debian in this regard.)
> >
> > Here is what is done for equivalent files (I assume) on Debian Squeeze:
> >
> > irwin@raven> ls -l ??/usr/lib/ocaml/*/*.so
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root ??19328 Oct ??5 ??2010
> > /usr/lib/ocaml/stublibs/dllbigarray.so
> <snip>
> > Do you have a different result on your system?
> >
> 
> I do have different results, but I am using a source-based install of
> OCaml, not the Ubuntu/Debian packages.  If the other official OCaml
> Debian packages do not have the execute bit set for their dll*.so
> files then it makes sense to follow their lead.  Fedora may have a
> different dependency resolution scheme, so I don't know the impact
> there.
> 
> > @Andrew when you are back in e-mail contact. ??Currently, you are using
> > a versioned install location for PLplot OCaml stublibs, e.g.,
> >
> > irwin@raven> ls -l ??/usr/lib/ocaml/*/*/*.so
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root ?? 4256 Aug 11 11:06
> > /usr/lib/ocaml/3.11.2/stublibs/dllplcairo_stubs.so
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 111424 Aug 11 11:06
> > /usr/lib/ocaml/3.11.2/stublibs/dllplplot_stubs.so
> >
> > And PLplot upstream is doing the same. ??Should your Debian packages
> > (and/or PLplot upstream) change to the unversioned install location?
> >
> 
> I think I read something about this ... Debian recently (within the
> last few years?) changed from versioned to unversioned paths for OCaml
> libraries.  I think it makes sense to follow Debian's lead here again,
> as I think Fedora also avoids versioned directories.

You are right. I'd worked from the ocaml policy document which still talks 
about installing in versioned directories, but on my Ubuntu system as well
as Alan's Debian system unversioned directories are used. 

I'll update the Debian packages, and also change plplot (since the install
location was arbitrarily chosen to match Debian for want of anything better).

Andrew