18 Oct
2013
18 Oct
'13
3:23 p.m.
HI there,
is anybody aware of any good reason why tdelibs14-trinity and some other packages have a
very strict dependency on binutils in Debian Jessie and Wheezy (and I suspect also on
previous versions and in Ubuntu, even though I didn't check)?
For example I get dependencies such as:
binutils (>= 2.23.52.20130828), binutils (<< 2.23.52.20130829).
The problem with such kind of dependency is that when binutils is updated, I need to do a
full rebuild of TDE before I can update the binutils package on my machine.
After the full rebuild is completed, everything can be updated, but I don't see the
reason for having the '<<' part of the dependency since it doesn't seem
to affect anything: TDE builds with both the old and the new binutils package.
So I am wondering if such strict dependency is intentional or if it is something that we
are dragging along from the past (perhaps because of a broken or incompatible binutils
version in the past).
If there isn't any particular reason, I will open a bug report in a few days about
this point.
Thanks
Michele
20 Oct
20 Oct
7:16 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] TDE strict dependency on binutils in Debian Jessie/Wheezy
On Friday 18 of October 2013 17:23:21 Michele Calgaro wrote:
HI there,
is anybody aware of any good reason why tdelibs14-trinity and some other
packages have a very strict dependency on binutils in Debian Jessie and
Wheezy (and I suspect also on previous versions and in Ubuntu, even though
I didn't check)? For example I get dependencies such as:
binutils (>= 2.23.52.20130828), binutils (<< 2.23.52.20130829).
The problem with such kind of dependency is that when binutils is updated,
I need to do a full rebuild of TDE before I can update the binutils package
on my machine. After the full rebuild is completed, everything can be
updated, but I don't see the reason for having the '<<' part of the
dependency since it doesn't seem to affect anything: TDE builds with both
the old and the new binutils package.
So I am wondering if such strict dependency is intentional or if it is
something that we are dragging along from the past (perhaps because of a
broken or incompatible binutils version in the past).
If there isn't any particular reason, I will open a bug report in a few
days about this point.
Thanks
Michele
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
21 Oct
21 Oct
5:47 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] TDE strict dependency on binutils in Debian Jessie/Wheezy
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
22 Oct
22 Oct
8:18 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] TDE strict dependency on binutils in Debian Jessie/Wheezy
2013/10/21 Michele Calgaro <michele.calgaro(a)yahoo.it>
Slávek, 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?
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
23 Oct
23 Oct
4:10 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] TDE strict dependency on binutils in Debian Jessie/Wheezy
On Tuesday 22 of October 2013 22:18:35 Fat-Zer wrote:
2013/10/21 Michele Calgaro
<michele.calgaro(a)yahoo.it>
Slávek, 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
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
12:53 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] TDE strict dependency on binutils in Debian Jessie/Wheezy
> Slávek, 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
5:37 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] TDE strict dependency on binutils in Debian Jessie/Wheezy
Dne st 23. října 2013 Michele Calgaro napsal(a):
Doing a full rebuild when binutils gets updated is not
a huge problem
after all, so we could keep the tight dependency if we really need it.
On the other hand this could become an issue for users of Debian Stable
(and Ubuntu I guess) who uses only official TDE releases and not the
nightly builds. If there is an update for Stable, the users would be
unable to update their binutils package until a new TDE release using
the same binutils version is available.
Perhaps a savy solution would be to keep the dependency from bfd off by
default, so the aforementioned users would have no problems if a Stable
update becomes available. We can add a compile option to enable the bdf
dependency, so if we need to debug some nasty bugs we can recompile
everything and work with the enhanced backtrace information.
What do you think?
I believe that a close relationship to binutils is just a minor problem
for users running stable version. It is very unlikely that in the updates
for stable version of Debian/Ubuntu distribution (or backports) will be
updated binutils, which would break dependencies.
The problem is therefore only applies to users who use testing and
unstable distributions. For such versions of distributions is not
possible to release the "final" versions of TDE, because any time
something can go wrong. I assume that users will always have to use
either nightly-builds or preliminary updates for stable TDE branch. As
was my ppa for v3.5.13.x branch.
In any case, if backtraces is good even without the lib bfd, we can turn
off WITH_LIBBFD and remove binutils-dev from tdelibs-trinity build-deps
and tdelibs14-trinity-dev dependencies. To me this seems appropriate.
Slavek
--
24 Oct
24 Oct
1:07 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] TDE strict dependency on binutils in Debian Jessie/Wheezy
I believe that a close relationship to binutils is just
a minor problem for users running stable version. It
is very unlikely that in the updates for stable version of Debian/Ubuntu distribution (or
backports) will be
updated binutils, which would break dependencies.
The problem is therefore only applies to users who use testing and unstable distributions.
For such versions
of distributions is not possible to release the "final" versions of TDE, because
any time something can go
wrong. I assume that users will always have to use either nightly-builds or preliminary
updates for stable
TDE branch. As was my ppa for v3.5.13.x branch.
I any case, if backtraces is good even without the lib bfd, we can turn off WITH_LIBBFD
and remove binutils-
dev from tdelibs-trinity build-deps and tdelibs14-trinity-dev dependencies. To me this
seems appropriate.
Slavek
You have more experience than me, so I leave the choice to you and Tim. Both choices are
ok for me. I usually do a full rebuild every month or two, so in the worst case I just
hold up the binutils update for a few weeks.
Michele
1:19 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] TDE strict dependency on binutils in Debian Jessie/Wheezy
On Thursday 24 of October 2013 03:07:15 Michele Calgaro wrote:
Right now I push into tde-packaging commit 499de1ac: Disable WITH_LIBBFD in
tdelibs on Debian and Ubuntu. We can look forward to cancel the tight
dependency on binutils from the next tdelibs rebuild :)
Slavek
I believe that
a close relationship to binutils is just a minor problem
for users running stable version. It is very unlikely that in the updates
for stable version of Debian/Ubuntu distribution (or backports) will be
updated binutils, which would break dependencies.
The problem is therefore only applies to users who use testing and
unstable distributions. For such versions of distributions is not
possible to release the "final" versions of TDE, because any time
something can go wrong. I assume that users will always have to use
either nightly-builds or preliminary updates for stable TDE branch. As
was my ppa for v3.5.13.x branch.
I any case, if backtraces is good even without the lib bfd, we can turn
off WITH_LIBBFD and remove binutils- dev from tdelibs-trinity build-deps
and tdelibs14-trinity-dev dependencies. To me this seems appropriate.
Slavek
You have more experience than me, so I leave the choice to you and Tim.
Both choices are ok for me. I usually do a full rebuild every month or two,
so in the worst case I just hold up the binutils update for a few weeks.
Michele
1:24 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] TDE strict dependency on binutils in Debian Jessie/Wheezy
You have more experience than me, so I leave the choice to you and Tim.
Both choices are ok for me. I usually do a full rebuild every month or
two, so in the worst case I just hold up the binutils update for a few weeks.
Michele
Right now I push into tde-packaging commit 499de1ac: Disable WITH_LIBBFD in tdelibs on
Debian and Ubuntu. We >can look forward to cancel the tight dependency on binutils from
the next tdelibs rebuild :)
Slavek
4096
days inactive
4102
days old
9 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Fat-Zer -
Michele Calgaro -
Slávek Banko