[argyllcms] Re: Argyll 1.7 dev on OpenBSD

  • From: Giacomo Catenazzi <catecate@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:38:03 +0100

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Pascal de Bruijn <pmjdebruijn@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Pascal de Bruijn wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > I was surprised to see 711 there, as 755 is the standard mode for
>> > executables just about everywhere, as far as I know.
>>
>> There doesn't seem to be any uniformity.
>
>
> I've never seen anything but 755 anywhere (for regular binaries). So as
> far as I can tell 755 is pretty standard.
>
>
>> Jam traditionally has 711,
>> and other info I've come across has:
>>
>>         chmod 700 command          executable script of binary (private)
>>         chmod 755 command          public script (cgi perl script)
>>         chmod 711 command          public binary (compiled code)
>>
>> while others use 755.
>>
>> I guess I don't understand why one should be the default over the other.
>> What problems are caused by using 711 ?
>>
>
> No clue, I guess it's just considered weird, and they changed it for
> consistency reasons.
>


For open source and distribution, 755 is a lot better:
you can do ldd, nm and gdb in such command (but not on 711 programs), which
help debugging and to see missing libraries (/ lib versions)

711 maybe it offer more protection on proprietary commands, because you
cannot see the internal. [but I'm not sure if there is a workaround.],
which in open source is unneeded: the distribution file (tar) and the
sources give that information already.

IIRC historically a dynamic linked program needed 755 (loader is loaded and
executed as (and before) the proper program. Maybe on some BSD is still so.

cate

Other related posts: