Re: query about debuginfo
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:12:12PM +0200, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 12.04.2021 o 21:53, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz pisze:
> > W dniu 12.04.2021 o 21:20, Peri Noid pisze:
> >> Dnia poniedziałek, 12 kwietnia 2021 20:56:49 CEST Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz
> >> pisze:
> >> [...]
> >>> Should we change our default rpm macro?
> >>>
> >>> $ rpm --showrc|grep CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE
> >>> -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:PLD}%{?debug:Debug} \
> >>
> >> Yes please! Make it either conditional or "the opposite". I couldn't
> >> compile
> >> kile recently just becouse of this since I didn't understand the source of
> >> the
> >> problem.
> >>
> >
> > I have no idea why we use PLD there.
>
> Probably to avoid default release optimizations that cmake adds (because
> we use our own CFLAGS etc).
That's the reason AFAIR.
--
Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: query about debuginfo
W dniu 12.04.2021 o 21:53, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz pisze:
> W dniu 12.04.2021 o 21:20, Peri Noid pisze:
>> Dnia poniedziałek, 12 kwietnia 2021 20:56:49 CEST Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz pisze:
>> [...]
>>> Should we change our default rpm macro?
>>>
>>> $ rpm --showrc|grep CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE
>>> -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:PLD}%{?debug:Debug} \
>>
>> Yes please! Make it either conditional or "the opposite". I couldn't compile
>> kile recently just becouse of this since I didn't understand the source of
>> the
>> problem.
>>
>
> I have no idea why we use PLD there.
Probably to avoid default release optimizations that cmake adds (because
we use our own CFLAGS etc).
>
> commit 547ff09556739ab0f98239b1278dddf9b506ff4e
> Author: Kacper Kornet
> Date: Thu Feb 3 16:38:26 2011 +
>
> - use our own build type in cmake
>
> Changed files:
> rpm.macros -> 1.604
>
> diff --git a/rpm.macros b/rpm.macros
> index 8537d8a..c04033a 100644
> --- a/rpm.macros
> +++ b/rpm.macros
> @@ -245,23 +245,21 @@
> %{?__cc:CC="%{__cc}"} \\\
> %{?__cxx:CXX="%{__cxx}"} \\\
> CPPFLAGS="${CPPFLAGS:-%{rpmcppflags}}" \\\
> -CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:-%{rpmcflags}}" \\\
> -FFLAGS="${FFLAGS:-%{rpmcflags}}" \\\
> -FCFLAGS="${FCFLAGS:-%{rpmcflags}}" \\\
> -CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS:-%{rpmcxxflags}}" \\\
> -LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:-%{rpmldflags}}" \\\
> %{__cmake} \\\
> -DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE=ON \\\
> - -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:Release}%{?debug:Debug} \\\
> + -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:PLD}%{?debug:Debug} \\\
>
--
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz, arekm / ( maven.pl | pld-linux.org )
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: query about debuginfo
W dniu 12.04.2021 o 21:20, Peri Noid pisze:
> Dnia poniedziałek, 12 kwietnia 2021 20:56:49 CEST Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz pisze:
> [...]
>> Should we change our default rpm macro?
>>
>> $ rpm --showrc|grep CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE
>> -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:PLD}%{?debug:Debug} \
>
> Yes please! Make it either conditional or "the opposite". I couldn't compile
> kile recently just becouse of this since I didn't understand the source of
> the
> problem.
>
I have no idea why we use PLD there.
commit 547ff09556739ab0f98239b1278dddf9b506ff4e
Author: Kacper Kornet
Date: Thu Feb 3 16:38:26 2011 +
- use our own build type in cmake
Changed files:
rpm.macros -> 1.604
diff --git a/rpm.macros b/rpm.macros
index 8537d8a..c04033a 100644
--- a/rpm.macros
+++ b/rpm.macros
@@ -245,23 +245,21 @@
%{?__cc:CC="%{__cc}"} \\\
%{?__cxx:CXX="%{__cxx}"} \\\
CPPFLAGS="${CPPFLAGS:-%{rpmcppflags}}" \\\
-CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:-%{rpmcflags}}" \\\
-FFLAGS="${FFLAGS:-%{rpmcflags}}" \\\
-FCFLAGS="${FCFLAGS:-%{rpmcflags}}" \\\
-CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS:-%{rpmcxxflags}}" \\\
-LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:-%{rpmldflags}}" \\\
%{__cmake} \\\
-DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE=ON \\\
- -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:Release}%{?debug:Debug} \\\
+ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:PLD}%{?debug:Debug} \\\
--
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz, arekm / ( maven.pl | pld-linux.org )
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: query about debuginfo
Dnia poniedziałek, 12 kwietnia 2021 20:56:49 CEST Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz pisze:
[...]
> Should we change our default rpm macro?
>
> $ rpm --showrc|grep CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE
> -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:PLD}%{?debug:Debug} \
Yes please! Make it either conditional or "the opposite". I couldn't compile
kile recently just becouse of this since I didn't understand the source of the
problem.
--
Łukasz Maśko_o)
Lukasz.Masko(at)ipipan.waw.pl /\\
Registered Linux User #61028 _\_V
Ubuntu: staroafrykańskie słowo oznaczające "Nie umiem zainstalować Debiana"
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: query about debuginfo
W dniu 12.04.2021 o 15:30, Krzysztof Mrozowicz via pld-devel-en pisze:
> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 20:47 IST, Jakub Bogusz
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 03:27:11PM +0100, Krzysztof Mrozowicz via
>> pld-devel-en wrote:
>>> Hi, I updated the wesnoth package to newer version and it built on my
>>> computer with no problems. When I tried to build it on the builders,
>>> it failed with error saying that debugsourcefiles.list is empty.
>>
>> That's because package was compiled without debugging information, so
>> rpm couldn't find source files for compiled binaries.
>>
>> After adjusting build to use PLD-specific compiler flags, debug packages
>> are created.
> Thank you very much for the answer and for fixing the spec. Not knowing you
> changed the spec, I was looking into it by myself and found that changing
> CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE from "Release" to "RelWithDebInfo" also does the job.
Should we change our default rpm macro?
$ rpm --showrc|grep CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:PLD}%{?debug:Debug} \
--
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz, arekm / ( maven.pl | pld-linux.org )
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: query about debuginfo
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 20:47 IST, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 03:27:11PM +0100, Krzysztof Mrozowicz via > pld-devel-en wrote: > > Hi, I updated the wesnoth package to newer version and it built on my > > computer with no problems. When I tried to build it on the builders, > > it failed with error saying that debugsourcefiles.list is empty. > > That's because package was compiled without debugging information, so > rpm couldn't find source files for compiled binaries. > > After adjusting build to use PLD-specific compiler flags, debug packages > are created. Thank you very much for the answer and for fixing the spec. Not knowing you changed the spec, I was looking into it by myself and found that changing CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE from "Release" to "RelWithDebInfo" also does the job. -- Krzysiek ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: query about debuginfo
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 03:27:11PM +0100, Krzysztof Mrozowicz via pld-devel-en
wrote:
> Hi, I updated the wesnoth package to newer version and it built on my
> computer with no problems. When I tried to build it on the builders,
> it failed with error saying that debugsourcefiles.list is empty.
That's because package was compiled without debugging information, so
rpm couldn't find source files for compiled binaries.
After adjusting build to use PLD-specific compiler flags, debug packages
are created.
> I updated my environment to what is in th-test and was able to
> reproduce the error on my computer, so something got changed in macros
> or rpm there...
Older rpm didn't complain on empty debug packages.
> This was the first time when I saw this kind of error so I asked
> google and found some solution:
>
> add %global debug_package %{nil} to the spec
We're rather using "%define _enable_debug_packages 0"
to disable debug packages completely (which must be done when no
native binaries are packaged, but package can't be noarch e.g. because
of arch-dependent file paths or arch-dependenty bytecode).
If binary debuginfo packages are created, but source files cannot be
found (e.g. because of language not supported by rpm debugsource
mechanism, like rust), we can disable just debugsource packages by
"%define _debugsource_packages 0"
(see gnome-tour.spec for example).
--
Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
query about debuginfo
Hi, I updated the wesnoth package to newer version and it built on my
computer with no problems. When I tried to build it on the builders,
it failed with error saying that debugsourcefiles.list is empty.
I updated my environment to what is in th-test and was able to
reproduce the error on my computer, so something got changed in macros
or rpm there...
This was the first time when I saw this kind of error so I asked
google and found some solution:
add %global debug_package %{nil} to the spec
And this helped. Packages were built correctly, but I don't know if
what I did, was right. The effect of adding the above directive to the
spec was that the package wesnoth-debuginfo-1.14.16-1.x86_64.rpm was
not created.
I'd love to hear from more experienced developers something that could
help me to understand this.
--
Krzysiek
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
