Erm. Doesn't that break "rpm -V" file consistency checking? Shouldn't it rather be done at the end of the rpm SPEC %install phase during the RPM build rather than during RPM install itself? Daniel J Walsh wrote: > Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:10:27 -0400 > From: Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: lame/libxvidcore & execstack > To: fedora-selinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <4458F213.4040505@xxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 03:09:03PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > > > >> Axel Thimm wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 02:27:24PM -0400, John Griffiths wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Axel Thimm wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 02:07:37PM -0400, John Griffiths wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Daniel J Walsh wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> John Griffiths wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> fedora-selinux-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Subject: > >>>>>>>>> Error running ffmpeg due to permission denied on library > >>>>>>>>> From: > >>>>>>>>> "Robert Foster" <rfoster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>> Date: > >>>>>>>>> Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:41:09 +1000 > >>>>>>>>> To: > >>>>>>>>> <fedora-selinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To: > >>>>>>>>> <fedora-selinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get ffmpeg working for Gallery2 on FC5, and > getting > >>>>>>>>> the following error (from the debug message via Gallery): > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> I had the same problem when using Kino which also uses > ffmpeg. Here > >>>>>>>> is what I did and it works. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> execstack -c /usr/lib/libmp3lame.so.0 > >>>>>>>> execstack -c /usr/lib/libxvidcore.so.4 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please submit bugs on these to Kino and ffmpeg. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Actually /usr/lib/libmp3lame.so.0 is part of > lame-3.96.1-10.rhfc5.at > >>>>>> and libxvidcore4-1.1.0-8.rhfc5.at both from ATRpms.net. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'll let the people at ATRpm know. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Is this considered a packaging or upstream issue? > >>>>> > >>>>> If packaging: What is the recommended way to fix it > specfile-wise? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> >From this, I find the folks at ATRpms know. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> I'm very sure they'll be just as confused as I am ;) > >>> > >>> > >> Point them at > >> > > > > ^^^^ > > > > Them is largely myself, that's why I can tell how confused "they" > will > > be. ;) > > > > > >> http://people.redhat.com/~drepper/selinux-mem.html > >> > >> and > >> > >> http://people.redhat.com/drepper/nonselsec.pdf > >> > > > > But these reference upstream fixing, not packaging ones. Do idioms > > exist to cirumvent this at the packaging level (other than fixing > the > > source and Patch0: the fix), or is the recommendation to report to > > upstream and wait for a fix while disabling selinux at the mean > time? > > How about executing > > execstack -c /usr/lib/libmp3lame.so.0 > > execstack -c /usr/lib/libxvidcore.so.4 > > > In the postinstall? If it does not break anything. > Erm. Doesn't that break "rpm -V" file checking? Shouldn't it be done at the end of the rpm SPEC %install phase during the build? -- Ted Rule Director, Layer3 Systems Ltd W: http://www.layer3.co.uk/ -- fedora-selinux-list mailing list fedora-selinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list
