Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:40:21 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, portmgr@FreeBSD.org, Trevor Johnson <trevor@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/print/acroread7 Makefile Message-ID: <20051016074021.GA53525@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20051006161412.w5ykixx5s0sskc00@netchild.homeip.net> References: <200510052317.j95NHWBa083203@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051006161412.w5ykixx5s0sskc00@netchild.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 04:14:12PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Technically it isn't needed to run brandelf, but to be on the safe side we > should use it. There are cases where you can shoot into your foot without a > branded binary. I didn't encountered such an edge case myself, but I > remember a case where an unbranded binary caused the system to reboot > (because it triggered the wrong syscall). Feel free to start a discussion > about the necessarity/deprecation of brandelf on -current if you think > brandelf is useless. brandelf is absolutely required if the binary is a static binary. Because the vendor may change between static and dynamic binary building, it is a good ideal to always brand Linux binaries. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051016074021.GA53525>