1 |
On 3/26/20 9:25 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote: |
2 |
> On 3/23/2020 04:21, Jaco Kroon wrote: |
3 |
>> Hi, |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/713668 relates. |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> * Searching for /usr/include/execinfo.h ... |
8 |
>> sys-libs/glibc-2.29-r7 (/usr/include/execinfo.h) |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> As I see I can either add an explicit depend on glibc which I'd prefer |
11 |
>> not to. Or someone from the musl team could possibly assist on how to |
12 |
>> get the backtrace() set of calls on musl please? |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> Alternatively I need to add a test and simply path debug.c to only |
15 |
>> provide stub function for print_backtrace(FILE *fp) that just does |
16 |
>> fprintf(fp, "No backtrace() available to print a backtrace.\n"); |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> Suggestions? |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> Kind Regards, |
21 |
>> Jaco |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Some quick searching on google, it looks like the cleanest fix for that bug |
24 |
> is dahdi-tools needs to be patched to only include execinfo.h or only use |
25 |
> backtrace() on glibc-based systems, and that patch then sent to the |
26 |
> dahdi-tools upstream developers for inclusion in a future release. That |
27 |
> way, we're not dragging that patch around forever in the tree or in the musl |
28 |
> overlay. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> It also doesn't look like musl itself will ever implement execinfo.h or |
31 |
> backtrace(), per this message in 2015 from the lead musl developer: |
32 |
> https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2015/04/09/3 |
33 |
> |
34 |
|
35 |
Correct. I've been adding -standalone packages to provide for features |
36 |
like fts, obstack, argp,etc. which are bundled into glibc but not really |
37 |
under the POSIX standard. |
38 |
|
39 |
So either we patch packages to turn off backtrace() or we add |
40 |
libunwind-standalone to the tree. |
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
44 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
45 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
46 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
47 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |