On 3/26/20 9:25 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 3/23/2020 04:21, Jaco Kroon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/713668 relates.
>>
>>  * Searching for /usr/include/execinfo.h ...
>> sys-libs/glibc-2.29-r7 (/usr/include/execinfo.h)
>>
>> As I see I can either add an explicit depend on glibc which I'd prefer
>> not to.  Or someone from the musl team could possibly assist on how to
>> get the backtrace() set of calls on musl please?
>>
>> Alternatively I need to add a test and simply path debug.c to only
>> provide stub function for print_backtrace(FILE *fp) that just does
>> fprintf(fp, "No backtrace() available to print a backtrace.\n");
>>
>> Suggestions?
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Jaco
> 
> Some quick searching on google, it looks like the cleanest fix for that bug
> is dahdi-tools needs to be patched to only include execinfo.h or only use
> backtrace() on glibc-based systems, and that patch then sent to the
> dahdi-tools upstream developers for inclusion in a future release.  That
> way, we're not dragging that patch around forever in the tree or in the musl
> overlay.
> 
> It also doesn't look like musl itself will ever implement execinfo.h or
> backtrace(), per this message in 2015 from the lead musl developer:
> https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2015/04/09/3
> 

Correct.  I've been adding -standalone packages to provide for features
like fts, obstack, argp,etc. which are bundled into glibc but not really
under the POSIX standard.

So either we patch packages to turn off backtrace() or we add
libunwind-standalone to the tree.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : bluen...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA

Reply via email to