Bug 21442
Summary: | binaries in /sbin are linked against libraries in /usr/lib and /usr/kerberos/lib | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Retired] Red Hat Linux | Reporter: | Need Real Name <bill> |
Component: | samba | Assignee: | Trond Eivind Glomsrxd <teg> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Dale Lovelace <dale> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 7.0 | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | i386 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2000-11-29 11:20:14 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
Need Real Name
2000-11-28 18:52:45 UTC
The samba mount.smbfs binaries in /sbin are symlinks to /usr/sbin, so I'd say this is technically OK. It's theoretically possible to links the SSL and kerberos libraries statically, I suppose. Prefer they were shared, actually ... smaller footprint etc. Putting the Kerberos libs and SSL in /lib and putting a symlink in /usr/lib looks like a good compromise ??? I can see why this is awkward, though -- you want the tools to be secure, but that builds up the complexity and size. Since the binaries aren't actually in /sbin (they're only symlinks for mount's sake), I'm not going to change how they are linked. |