Very Computer

by **Harry Pehkon** » Mon, 19 Aug 2002 06:24:19

If you do a fresh install:

home$ ls -l /bsd
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 4543036 Aug 1 21:16 /bsd

...but after doing a recompile:

hannah$ ls -l /bsd
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 4543036 Aug 16 23:21 /bsd

The first machine was installed from a home-made release(8). The
second machine is constantly updated using directions from release(8)
as well as http://openbsd.org/stable.html through a compiling process
(as opposed to reinstalling...duh).

Does anybody know of a reason (other than consistency) why I should
take out them executable bits out of /bsd's file mode (ie does anybody
care)?

Thanks!
Harry.

by **tedu** » Mon, 19 Aug 2002 07:09:20

Quote:> Does anybody know of a reason (other than consistency) why I should
> take out them executable bits out of /bsd's file mode (ie does anybody
> care)?

You never actually run the kernel, so it doesn't need exec bits. the
priviledges matter little, since the bootloader doesn't care a
whole lot.

--
Mediocrity is a sin.

by **mkhom** » Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:58:25

> If you do a fresh install:

> home$ ls -l /bsd
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 4543036 Aug 1 21:16 /bsd

> ...but after doing a recompile:

> hannah$ ls -l /bsd
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 4543036 Aug 16 23:21 /bsd

> The first machine was installed from a home-made release(8). The
> second machine is constantly updated using directions from release(8)
> as well as http://openbsd.org/stable.html through a compiling process
> (as opposed to reinstalling...duh).

> Does anybody know of a reason (other than consistency) why I should
> take out them executable bits out of /bsd's file mode (ie does anybody
> care)?

> Thanks!
> Harry.

Even your computer won't care since /bsd is a stand-alone program and
qualifies as 'Wrong architecture format' if ever invoked within another
running /bsd as a (time) shared process. You're just seeing a
border-line or boundary value anomaly within the make regime that does
not expect it is producing a standalone program for which the time-share
'mode' is meaningless.

by **Harry Pehkon** » Tue, 20 Aug 2002 03:36:39

Thanks, mkhomo and tedu, for your replies.

Harry.

Very Computer

/bsd is executable or not (to chmod or not)?

/bsd is executable or not (to chmod or not)?

/bsd is executable or not (to chmod or not)?

/bsd is executable or not (to chmod or not)?

/bsd is executable or not (to chmod or not)?