On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 13:36 -0400, Peter Jones wrote: > Why can't the glibc package provide a ld.so.cache which simply indicates > no libraries? This seems more correct to me, especially as it claims > ownership of the file. That won't help if ldconfig re-creates the file each time (vs. just rewriting the existing file in place), as the new file would still be labeled in accordance with the default behavior unless ldconfig were modified. But in any event, it sounds like we need to determine why ldconfig isn't running the proper domain, as that would suffice to ensuring that ld.so.cache is labeled properly. -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
