Oops, I sent this to just Arnaldo the first time... sorry, Arnaldo! On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo<acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > What about my suggestion to change the proposed patch to check if it is > running on a debian system and if so to avoid checking for libebl? Well, that wouldn't really help me with the bisection, though now that I think about it I could have done that on one of the machines in my school's CS lab, where I had to build the elfutils libraries myself anyway... Anyway, about that idea: Debian hasn't always lacked libebl -- rolling it into libdw is a fairly recent thing, and back when it existed, both libdw and libebl were provided as static libraries, so on systems that still have it, it will probably be necessary to link it in. Not to mention that having to conditionalize this on the distribution feels kind of icky, especially considering how hard-to-follow the REDHAT/FEDORA conditional already is. Speaking of the REDHAT/FEDORA conditional, (a) why doesn't it have a comment explaining what it's for? -- that is, what is different on redhat/fedora, and what it does to compensate for them (b) why is it *after* the check for the "dwfl_module_build_id" symbol, so that the REDHAT/FEDORA stuff can't fix up the missing variables and allow the symbol check a chance to run? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dwarves" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
