See bug 503982: Gentoo's ld.bfd creates executables containing pax headers, executables created by ld.gold do not contain pax headers. Please patch ld.gold to include pax headers in the executables.
i'm not sure we should bother. we're moving to use extended attributes and away from ELF markings.
As I said in bug 503982, extended attributes are a no-go: "xattr pax marking is a no-go here. Neither our filesystems nor our backups support xattr, so any xattr pax marking will fail or be lost." We still transfer files over FAT filesystems or "old" fileservers or internet filestores from time to time, we do our backups backup by star because it is faster and has more features than gnu tar, but when booting a dead system from CD, we have to restore by gnu tar, which doesn't recognize star's extended attributes, ... PAX properties have to be stored within the file contents in some way, everything else ist nonsense from the system administrator's point of view.
that you choose to use a system that doesn't support xattrs doesn't seem like a blocker for progress here. the modification of the generated ELFs has caused us a fairly high maintenance burden.
(In reply to Klaus Kusche from comment #2) > > PAX properties have to be stored within the file contents in some way, > everything else ist nonsense from the system administrator's > point of view. other security related labels, like selinux, caps, acls are all housed in xattrs. with the correct utilities, these can easily be maintained. anyhow, you're original point was about ld.gold specifically. why not just used bfd?
> anyhow, you're original point was about ld.gold specifically. why not just > used bfd? I am using bfd. However, some gentoo packages force (or forced) the use of ld.gold in their makefiles, ignoring any CFLAGS/LDFLAGS settings etc.. Some of these packages have been fixed, some have been eliminated from my system, so currently no problem here.
