On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:16:29 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> - Putting extra files under /usr/lib/debug causes:
> error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
> This is caused by split debuginfo checking which file corresponds to
> which main/sub-package. Without split debuginfo anything found
> under /usr/lib/debug is just put into the -debuginfo package, no
> questions asked.
> The immediate workaround is to add the following to your spec file:
> %undefine _debuginfo_subpackages
> This disables split debuginfo packages and just generates one big
> -debuginfo packages with everything under /usr/lib/debug/ included.
> But this might or might not be a packaging bug. In particular if it
> contains generated pyc files those probably really shouldn't be there.
Why not? For *.py files their *.pyc should be also packaged.
> The basic issue is that we have been trying to make the debuginfo
> packages self-contained and non-conflicting between versions.
> So you can easily install debuginfo for different (bi)arches or
> versions. But some packages assume that if they drop anything
> under /usr/lib/debug it will just magically appear in the debuginfo
> package (which has been historically true). But with the split
> debuginfo we have to make a choice which subpackage it belongs
> to. Best rpm fix would probably be to add such files to the "main"
> debuginfo package.
> But it would probably be better to move these files to the
> python3-devel package. Maybe we should discuss with the gdb
> maintainers how/where they would like to see these gdb python
> extensions installed. I doubt the -debuginfo package really is
> the place for them anyway.
I cannot speak for python3-devel. But for package "gdb" I get:
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
And gdb-gdb.py is useful only for debugging /usr/bin/gdb itself.
For that one needs gdb-debuginfo.rpm. And gdb-devel.rpm even does not exist.
devel mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org