Bug 167129
Summary: | libsafe prevents prelink | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jerry James <loganjerry> |
Component: | libsafe | Assignee: | Steve Grubb <sgrubb> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 4 | CC: | Christian.Iseli, extras-qa |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | i686 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-01-18 00:39:01 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Jerry James
2005-08-30 17:33:14 UTC
Hi, just curious...what libsafe page was supposed to have a warning? This is the first I've heard of this problem. libsafe is traditionally used with older operating systems that do not do have stack object size detection. This would be fc2 and lower. I personally would not run libsafe on fc4 since it already does something similar to what libsafe does. I was referring to this page: http://fedoraproject.org/extras/4/i386/repodata/repoview/libsafe-0-2.0-17c.fc4.html which looks like it was generated from the RPM, so I guess the Summary field should say something about this. In any case, if libsafe is irrelevant to FC3 and FC4, why is it in Extras? Furthermore, vanilla FC4 didn't catch bug #167127, but libsafe did. Are you talking about the new mudflap stuff in gcc4? But the Core and Extras release rpms aren't built with mudflap, are they? FC3 and FC4 have now been EOL'd. Please check the ticket against a current Fedora release, and either adjust the release number, or close it if appropriate. Thanks. Your friendly BZ janitor :-) |