[Bug 539698] debuginfo package conflict between binutils and mingw32-binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698 --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-11-24 04:37:31 EDT --- Judging by comment 4, it seems a simple way to resolve this would be to rename the binutils-* directory to mingw32-binutils-* just before building. I'll try this now ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ fedora-mingw mailing list fedora-mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
[Bug 539698] debuginfo package conflict between binutils and mingw32-binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698 --- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-11-24 04:53:28 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=373371) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=373371) mingw32-binutils.spec.patch The attachment fixes this. Debuginfo files are now named things like: /usr/src/debug/mingw32-binutils-2.19.51.0.14/binutils-2.19.51.0.14/bfd/elf.c However I'm not sure this is the best way to fix it. Can we make a global change to /usr/lib/rpm/mingw32-find-debuginfo.sh instead to add some sort of fixed path (so we use /usr/src/debug/mingw32 instead of /usr/src/debug)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ fedora-mingw mailing list fedora-mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
[Bug 539698] debuginfo package conflict between binutils and mingw32-binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698 --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-11-24 05:06:10 EDT --- Another thought: Shouldn't RPM be able to install the files anyway unless they are different? The binutils mingw32-binutils packages would have identical upstream source and hence identical files, *unless* one of the packages was patching the source files. It turns out that binutils patches the following source files: bfd/elfcode.h bfd/section.c ld/ldmain.c mingw32-binutils doesn't patch any files. (But should it do?) The list of files doesn't quite match the conflicting files reported in comment 0, although it is fairly similar. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ fedora-mingw mailing list fedora-mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
[Bug 539698] debuginfo package conflict between binutils and mingw32-binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-11-24 05:22:56 EDT --- AFAIK, Binutils also autogenerates some files during build, they may be different for different targets. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ fedora-mingw mailing list fedora-mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
[Bug 539698] debuginfo package conflict between binutils and mingw32-binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Berrange berra...@redhat.com 2009-11-23 06:03:35 EDT --- Why is the -debuginfo RPM putting stuff into a directory named after the SOURCE0 file, rather than named after the SRPM. That would seem to be a guaranteed recipe for disaster. IMHO we need to fix the macros generating debuginfo to use SRPM name for thebase directory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ fedora-mingw mailing list fedora-mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
[Bug 539698] debuginfo package conflict between binutils and mingw32-binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-11-23 08:43:58 EDT --- It's not really put into a directory named after the SOURCE0 file, it's just using the directory name the sources were already in, which is generally named after the source tarball (though some tarballs are weird and contain differently-named directories, or no subdirectories at all). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ fedora-mingw mailing list fedora-mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
[Bug 539698] debuginfo package conflict between binutils and mingw32-binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698 --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-11-20 16:19:32 EDT --- Acknowledged ... this looks nasty. It also looks like it would affect any package that used the same source as another package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ fedora-mingw mailing list fedora-mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
[Bug 539698] debuginfo package conflict between binutils and mingw32-binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698 Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- Comment #2 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-11-20 17:56:54 EDT --- Yeah, all those are potentially affected, see also: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=556 Though it isn't always a problem because, if all the files are the same, RPM won't complain about the conflict (this explains why xine-lib-extras-freeworld-debuginfo apparently doesn't cause such issues). But if there are files generated during the build based on differing configuration, or just differently patched by the 2 packages, those conflicts will show up. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ fedora-mingw mailing list fedora-mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
