Bug 664 - library file symlinks incorrect in binary distributions for Solaris sparc versions 9 & 10
library file symlinks incorrect in binary distributions for Solaris sparc ver...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: Sudo
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Packaging
1.8.11
Sun Solaris 2.x
: low normal
Assigned To: Todd C. Miller
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2014-09-24 07:43 MDT by Mark
Modified: 2014-09-24 09:52 MDT (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Mark 2014-09-24 07:43:53 MDT
Installed binary packages for Solaris sparc 9 and 10 found symlinks in /usr/local/libexec/sudo/ to be incorrect

specifically the libsudo_util.so* links

what the package lays down...

$ ls -la
total 16
drwxr-xr-x   2 root     sys           14 Sep 23 19:40 .
drwxr-xr-x   4 bin      bin            4 Sep 23 19:40 ..
-rw-r--r--   1 root     bin          969 Sep 23 13:48 group_file.la
-rw-r--r--   1 root     bin        18200 Sep 23 13:48 group_file.so
-rw-r--r--   1 root     bin          950 Sep 23 13:48 libsudo_util.la
lrwxrwxrwx   1 root     root           4 Sep 23 19:40 libsudo_util.so -> sudo
lrwxrwxrwx   1 root     root           4 Sep 23 19:40 libsudo_util.so.0 -> sudo
-rw-r--r--   1 root     bin       217604 Sep 23 13:48 libsudo_util.so.0.0.0
-rw-r--r--   1 root     bin          988 Sep 23 13:48 sudoers.la
-rw-r--r--   1 root     bin       599612 Sep 23 13:48 sudoers.so
-rw-r--r--   1 root     bin          935 Sep 23 13:48 sudo_noexec.la
-rw-r--r--   1 root     bin        12252 Sep 23 13:48 sudo_noexec.so
-rw-r--r--   1 root     bin          981 Sep 23 13:48 system_group.la
-rw-r--r--   1 root     bin        12564 Sep 23 13:48 system_group.so


I believe libsudo_util.so and libsudo_util.so.0 should be symlinked to libsudo_util.so.0.0.0 instead of the non-existent 'sudo' file

As a test I renamed the 2 links and created links for both those to the libsudo_util.so.0.0.0 file and that appeared to fix the issue.

thanks
Comment 1 Todd C. Miller 2014-09-24 09:52:40 MDT
This was due to an idiosyncrasy in the Solaris shell.  I've worked around the issue and rebuilt the Solaris packages.