On Tuesday 22 of October 2013 22:18:35 Fat-Zer wrote:
> 2013/10/21 Michele Calgaro <michele.calgaro@...>
>
> > > Hi Michele,
> > >
> > >
> > > explanation of very tight depending on binutils is simple:
> > >
> > > For easier detection of particular bug were incorporated into
> >
> > kdesktop_lock
> >
> > > function to generate backtrace (commit 786e248c - tdebase). Later the
> >
> > same
> >
> > > function incorporated into tdeio (commit a166b1da - tdelibs). And
> > > lastly, both these functions were replaced with improved function
> > > kdBacktrace in kdebug (commit a5ba7ad7 - tdelibs).
> > >
> > > This implementation uses for generate backtraces library bfd from
> >
> > binutils.
> >
> > > And this library is causing this problem with a very tight dependency.
> >
> > This
> >
> > > library is always one specific version and does not allow even a small
> > > difference. For example on Debian Squeeze:
> >
> > libbfd-2.20.1-system.20100303.so
> >
> > > For this reason, wherever it is used kdBacktrace => is dependent on
> >
> > libbfd
> >
> > > =>
> > > is so strict dependency on a particular version of binutils.
> > >
> > > The solution would be if instead of linking the library dynamically
> >
> > loaded.
> >
> > > But it can be a problem when that will happen in a crash handler => in
> > > an emergency situation.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Slavek
> >
> > Thanks Slavek, very clear!
> > Cheers
> >   Michele
>
> Sl�vek, AFAIR since commit a5ba7ad7 tdelibs supposed to be build without
> bfd support by default because backtrace is pretty readable even without
> it. May be the dependence in packages are obsolete for now?

Yes, by default it is off, but for Debian / Ubuntu packages is on. If the 
backtrace without bfd is good enough, we can for Debian / Ubuntu packages 
also turn off bfd. This would avoid such a strict dependence.

What is your opinion?

Slavek