Libraries are *not* executable, correct?

This is a discussion on Libraries are *not* executable, correct? within the Linux General forums, part of the Linux Forums category; Why do people set the executable bit in libraries? I thought they were just ignorant/careless, but I was just ...


Go Back   Usenet Forums > Linux Forums > Linux General

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2008
Ramon F Herrera
 
Posts: n/a
Default Libraries are *not* executable, correct?


Why do people set the executable bit in libraries?

I thought they were just ignorant/careless, but I was just reading
some Adobe documentation:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIX:
Before you can compile the samples, you must point the makefiles to
your gcc 3.2 or VisualAge XL 6.0 compiler. Make sure the permissions
on all libraries are set so that the dynamic loader can find and load
the libraries.

chmod o+x libraryname
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just checked in a Linux server and most *.a libraries do not have
the execute bits set, but most *.so files have it.

What's the story with this?

-Ramon

Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0