Re: debug facilities
On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 10:17 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > I still don't quite understand why only some packages have the > debuginfo/debugsource split (I counted ~10k debugsources to ~30k > debuginfo). Is that an automatic process that just needs to happen > over time, or do the maintainers need to hand-polish individual > packages? No, that is expected. There is one debugsources package per source rpm. And there is one debuginfo package per binary subpackage. This is because the subpackages are build from the same sources, so they cannot easily be split. See also: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SubpackageAndSourceDebuginfo ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: debug facilities
On 12/08/2017 06:29 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 15:47 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: The bottom line is that it's pretty tricky to figure this out, which is a pity because easy debuggability is one of the important cultural features of Fedora and FOSS. It's a regression: GDB used to point to integrated .debuginfo packages, which was sufficient. Now, maybe GDB should suggest installing the source RPM? Sorry I only saw this now. I think this is simply a bug in dnf. dnf debuginfo-install really should do the right thing by default: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.redhat.com%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D1494628=02%7C01%7Cprzemek.klosowski%40nist.gov%7C9b51d028c82b480ec83608d53e2effa3%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C636483293944728074=Xfyb%2FfxQaCL1GWplbwgxgx%2B7cmyWfjQME1jCIkp7WzE%3D=0 Thanks for the info---that's good news. I still don't quite understand why only some packages have the debuginfo/debugsource split (I counted ~10k debugsources to ~30k debuginfo). Is that an automatic process that just needs to happen over time, or do the maintainers need to hand-polish individual packages? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: debug facilities
On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 15:47 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > The bottom line is that it's pretty tricky to figure this out, which is > a pity because easy debuggability is one of the important cultural > features of Fedora and FOSS. It's a regression: GDB used to point to > integrated .debuginfo packages, which was sufficient. Now, maybe GDB > should suggest installing the source RPM? Sorry I only saw this now. I think this is simply a bug in dnf. dnf debuginfo-install really should do the right thing by default: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494628 There is a patch, but the dnf maintainer doesn't seem to like it. The next version of rpmbuild will generate a soft depends Recommends between debuginfo and debugsource packages, which should pull in debugsources automatically. But of course that needs a rebuild of every package and won't help you in Fedora 27. Cheers, Mark ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: debug facilities
On 12/01/2017 05:36 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: On 01/12/17 22:33, Samuel Sieb wrote: If you do "rpm -qi soundfont-utils" you will find a line like this: Source RPM : gt-0.4-23.fc26.src.rpm That means that this package is a sub-package of gt. That's where you'll find it in bugzilla and the package database. That's also probably where the sources are, but I'm not sure about that. Try installing debuginfo for gt and see what happens. It's a mixture, as you can see in koji: As I wrote earlier, I did see the connection, but gt-debugsources doesn't seem to provide midi-disasm (rpm -ql gt-debugsource | xargs grep -i midi-disasm returns no hits). Tom's koji hint was right on: the build log shows that midi-disasm is built as 'dim' and renamed, presumably in the spec file, which is of course not included in the binary RPM. BTW, how do you locate the koji buildID for a given package? The bottom line is that it's pretty tricky to figure this out, which is a pity because easy debuggability is one of the important cultural features of Fedora and FOSS. It's a regression: GDB used to point to integrated .debuginfo packages, which was sufficient. Now, maybe GDB should suggest installing the source RPM? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: debug facilities
On 01/12/17 22:33, Samuel Sieb wrote: If you do "rpm -qi soundfont-utils" you will find a line like this: Source RPM : gt-0.4-23.fc26.src.rpm That means that this package is a sub-package of gt. That's where you'll find it in bugzilla and the package database. That's also probably where the sources are, but I'm not sure about that. Try installing debuginfo for gt and see what happens. It's a mixture, as you can see in koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=946244 The debuginfo is per binary rpm but the debugsource is just one package for the whole source rpm so is gt-debugsource. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: debug facilities
On 12/01/2017 12:51 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: I know that we started splitting the source packages off---but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be soundfont-utils-debugsource anywhere. In fact, the sounfount-utils package is a little bit of a mystery: I couldn't find it on the Fedora package list, and it doesn't show up in Bugzilla so I can't enter a bug against it. The URL in the package points to http://alsa.opensrc.org/GusSoundfont, but there don't seem to be any sources for the utils there, and the source URL seems to point to package gt (which is a lightweight version of Timidity, so it's not totally unrelated but I didn't see midi-disasm there) If you do "rpm -qi soundfont-utils" you will find a line like this: Source RPM : gt-0.4-23.fc26.src.rpm That means that this package is a sub-package of gt. That's where you'll find it in bugzilla and the package database. That's also probably where the sources are, but I'm not sure about that. Try installing debuginfo for gt and see what happens. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: debug facilities
On 12/01/2017 04:39 PM, John Reiser wrote: I ran into a problem with midi-disasm from soundfount-utils. I tried to debug it but installing soundfont-utils-debuginfo only brings in the symbol tables, not sources. Perhaps the problem is particular to that rpm, or similar ones? Is soundfont-utils one of several rpms that belong to the same installable package? For instance, when I run "dnf debuginfo-install coreutils" [on Fedora 25] then it installs the sources in /usr/src/debug/coreutils-8.25 and I can look at src/date.c for the source to /bin/date. This is the old way of doing things, which worked; debuginfo packages contained both debug symbols and source. This had the disadvantage of large debuginfo packages: Octave is 342MB, qt is 119MB, glibc is 90MB. Debug symbols are essential for abrt-style automatic stack dump telemetry, so it was proposed to split -debuginfo into small debug symbol package and separate -debugsource package; this hasn't been done to all packages though (I am not sure how much manual work the packager has to do to accomplish that). My problem is that I can't find out where is the source of my package! it apparently was split off but I don't know where it went. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: debug facilities
I ran into a problem with midi-disasm from soundfount-utils. I tried to debug it but installing soundfont-utils-debuginfo only brings in the symbol tables, not sources. Perhaps the problem is particular to that rpm, or similar ones? Is soundfont-utils one of several rpms that belong to the same installable package? For instance, when I run "dnf debuginfo-install coreutils" [on Fedora 25] then it installs the sources in /usr/src/debug/coreutils-8.25 and I can look at src/date.c for the source to /bin/date. -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
