Summary:	ASTERISK-17842: [patch] Building BETTER_BACKTRACES on CentOS 5
Reporter:	Byron Clark (byronclark)	Labels:
Date Opened:	2011-05-11 15:33:30	Date Closed:	2013-09-26 09:18:20
Priority:	Minor	Regression?	No
Status:	Closed/Complete	Components:	General
Versions:		Frequency of Occurrence
Related Issues:
Environment:		Attachments:	( 0) 20110512__issue19278.diff.txt ( 1) configure_bfd_with_dl_and_iberty.patch
Description:	In order to detect libbfd and build with BETTER_BACKTRACES, I have to use the attached patch to detect the library. Admittedly, I'm no good with autotools, so there's probably a better way to do this. The patch was created against svn trunk, but is also needed on 1.8.
Comments:	By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2011-05-12 07:24:29 Thanks for all your work lately Byron. Do you happen to be on IRC? I was wondering if you might contact Russell Bryant (Asterisk Project team lead) about maybe getting commit access for some of your changes? Basically the way that works is you'd post your changes to reviewboard, and when someone signed off on the changes, then you would commit them where appropriate. If you're interested in this, please email russellb at digium dot com. By: Tilghman Lesher (tilghman) 2011-05-12 12:26:42 Correct way to do this is to only require those libraries in a separate line, because other distributions do not require those extra libraries (and may choke, if provided [due to duplicate symbols]). By: Byron Clark (byronclark) 2011-05-12 14:42:38 Thanks, that patch is great, I'll update my builds to test it. By: Vladimir Mikhelson (vmikhelson) 2012-02-18 18:05:07.363-0600 Was this ever committed to the trunk? I needed to recompile v.1.8.9.2 with BETTER_TRACES and the option was XXXed on Centos 5.7 with binutils and binutils-devel v.2.17.50.0.6-14.el5 installed. I first tried 20110512__issue19278.diff.txt and it did not make the trick. I then added configure_bfd_with_dl_and_iberty.patch and it opened the option in the menuselect. By: Matt Jordan (mjordan) 2013-06-24 09:17:17.323-0500 So the original patch was committed. An improperly formatted subversion commit message is the reason why this issue is still open. {quote} Correct way to do this is to only require those libraries in a separate line, because other distributions do not require those extra libraries (and may choke, if provided [due to duplicate symbols]). {quote} I agree with Tilghman - I'd be concerned about unilaterally changing the external library check line without knowing who all it was going to impact. As such, I'd rather not change the script's first check to find the library - we may end up breaking some other distro if we went down that road. I'm curious why the original check failed on CentOS 5.7 - the way the script is written, it should have attempted to find the library without the {{liberty}} check, and, if it failed, it should have attempted again with the {{liberty}} library. {noformat} AST_EXT_LIB_CHECK([BFD], [bfd], [bfd_openr], [bfd.h]) if test "${PBX_BFD}" = "0"; then  # Fedora/RedHat/CentOS require extra libraries  AST_EXT_LIB_CHECK([BFD], [bfd], [bfd_check_format], [bfd.h], [-ldl -liberty]) fi {noformat} By: Matt Jordan (mjordan) 2013-09-26 09:18:21.071-0500 Closing out this issue as "Fixed". From what I can tell, {{BETTER_BACKTRACES}} is detected on both CentOS as well as Fedora systems. If there are additional problems, please let a bug marshal know in #asterisk-bugs and we'll reopen this issue.