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