| Re: [AD] Unix install permissions |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] Unix install permissions
- From: Shawn Walker <binarycrusader@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:16:32 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=rOwco3ui48WasmgJ9N73dHamlD0IocDvyPn0C/QjfBd9mgs8jNW2x8GO8Zli7ONMdBWXlOXCcy9eetEQh/E/Oz4z1NunBY9g9akTus6ADl0V+LKId6zW799b3jwT6kfTSQKutp1JTMWm+QBHZEZ6GEh9SuqsolDQlapsZ/ue6n0=
On 7/24/05, Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Here is a patch to install liballeg*.so and the alleg-*.so modules with
> the execute bit on. Everyone else seems to do it that way, though I
> don't really know why.
I posed this question to the OpenSolaris community. I imagine the
answers would be roughly the same for BSD/Linux:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=1353&tstart=0
In short, it's for historical reasons when linkers and other things
required the executable bit set...whether it's still for historical
reasons or not on BSD/Linux who can say? But everyone seems to ship
them that way as you noted.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader@xxxxxxxxxx - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/