[Samba] Broken Dependencies?
samba at laurenz.ws
Wed Jun 1 05:56:25 UTC 2022
if i understand this right, you will provide new packages?
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Michael Tokarev <mjt at tls.msk.ru>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. Mai 2022 18:06
> An: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org>; Dirk Laurenz
> <samba at laurenz.ws>; 'sambalist' <samba at lists.samba.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Samba] Broken Dependencies?
> [Catching up with old(ish) emails, hopefully]
> 25.05.2022 01:10, Andrew Bartlett via samba wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-05-24 at 14:25 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> >> What do you mean "built without backtrace support"? How one builds
> >> with or without backtrace support, - I don't know this term.
> > In short, if libunwind is found on the system at build time, Samba
> > will
> Aha. I didn't know, and apparently no one in the Debian samba team did
> know, either. I've added libunwind-dev build dependency now, and it is picked
> up by the build procedure. Indeed, in debian we had no stack backtrace
> support in samba, now we do have it. I just tried - killing smbd with SIGSEGV
> produces a nice backtrace now.
> > do an internal stack unwind that at least gives us a first clue, but
> > ideally we need the full gdb backtrace, ideally by having the
> > gdb_backtrace script packaged so the admin can specify it.
> > Long ago Debian packages used to mail the admin when Samba crashed
> > with a backtrace, I don't know when that stopped happening.
> It is still the same, nothing had changed in this area. But with time, working
> email setup is less and less common on a typical linux system, so the reports
> aren't being emailed as often as before. Also, it depends on gdb to be installed
> to actually *produce* a report in the first place.
> > "We" should add info on installing the right packages and enabling
> > this to https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Bug_Reporting to give folks a
> > clue so I stop repeating myself on the lists...
> Actually this wiki page isn't useful now. But the problem is: my first conclusion
> after trying to find some info about one or another aspect of samba was that
> the samba wiki is right to useless generally. And after several tries, it doesn't
> occur to me anymore to think about using samba wiki at all.. hwell..
More information about the samba