Question about "shlib-with-non-pic-code", possibly caused by assembler code?

[Gérard Milmeister]

On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 22:51 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
> Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > In the meantime, should this be a blocker against pari being accepted
> > into extras?
> > 
> 
> Non PIC .so's break with SELinux (targeted) being enabled. There is a
> work around though, checkout Glide3 in cvs, there is some magick in the
> specfile to fix the SELinux issues.

I see, that they change the context to textrel_shlib_t, and create
a selinux module for it. However this should only be done, if there
is no other way to do it. Normally, ensuring that all the source files
going into the shared library are compiled using -fPIC should be enough.
Another problem seems to be that on X86_64 they MUST be compiled with
-fPIC. Could someone confirm this. What's the situation for ppc?
BTW, is ppc 32 or 64 bit?

-- 
Gérard Milmeister
Langackerstrasse 49
CH-8057 Zürich