ldd: resolve versus exec

[Christian MICHON]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
<rep.dot.nop at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a bit puzzled about ldd, i admit:
>
> $ ldd /bin/ls
> /bin/ls: is setuid
> FOO              etc              root             tmp
> FOO2             home             s                usr
> bin              ldd              sbin             var
> boot             lib              stress-dlopen.c
> config           linuxrc          stress-uc
> dev              proc             sys
> $ ldd /bin/rm
> /bin/rm: is setuid
> BusyBox v1.13.0.svn (2008-10-29 19:25:31 CET) multi-call binary
>
> Usage: rm [OPTION]... FILE...
>
> Remove (unlink) the FILE(s). Use '--' to
> indicate that all following arguments are non-options.
>
> Options:
>        -i      Always prompt before removing
>        -f      Never prompt
>        -r,-R   Remove directories recursively
>
> checking sub-depends for '/lib/libcrypt.so.0'
> checking sub-depends for '/lib/libc.so.0'
>        libcrypt.so.0 => /lib/libcrypt.so.0 (0x00000000)
>        libc.so.0 => /lib/libc.so.0 (0x00000000)
>        /lib/ld-uClibc.so.0 => /lib/ld-uClibc.so.0 (0x00000000)
> $
>
> Not sure if running the binary is such a good idea. Thoughts?
> _______________________________________________
> uClibc mailing list
> uClibc at uclibc.org
> http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
>

this is/was working fine on uclibc-0.9.29.

it this what we should expect if we move to uclibc-0.9.30-rc* ?

I'll double check the option mentioned by Rob on my future builds.

-- 
Christian
--
http://detaolb.sourceforge.net/, a linux distribution for Qemu with Git inside !