Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Upstream debuginfo enablement (PR #3040)
Closed #3040. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040#event-12783537201 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Upstream debuginfo enablement (PR #3040)
This is superseded by #3085 which solves is similarly but even a bit cleaner. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040#issuecomment-2106981500 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Upstream debuginfo enablement (PR #3040)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -145,6 +145,9 @@
#%__systemd_sysusers @__SYSTEMD_SYSUSERS@
%__systemd_sysusers%{_rpmconfigdir}/sysusers.sh
+# enable debug package generation
+%_enable_debug_packages 1
I realized this doesn't belong to the main macros.in, really - it should
probably be in platform.in instead. For one, this is a Linux-only feature due
to the ties elfutils, but also: we don't want debug packages for noarch
packages, *that* is the place to express it. Sadly we'll still need the other
noarch checks because the platform files aren't reread on spec parse recursion,
but it's the right direction anyhow.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040#pullrequestreview-2016452103
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Upstream debuginfo enablement (PR #3040)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> %global __debug_package 1\
+%(cat > "%{specpartsdir}/rpm-debuginfo.specpart" << EOL\
I'd like it a whole lot more if the `cat` was in the template part. This is an
ugly side-effect for a macro to have, eg somebody doing `rpm --eval
"%{debug_package}"` to see what it's made of.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040#pullrequestreview-2016438413
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Upstream debuginfo enablement (PR #3040)
OK, the _target_cpu issue is now papered over and debuginfo is enabled through the whole test suite. This should ow all works as expected (with the exception of the --build-in_place stuff I dd not look at) -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040#issuecomment-2069544853 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Upstream debuginfo enablement (PR #3040)
@ffesti pushed 3 commits. 06cee54118433741010bc7349d96715da5345929 Keep _target_cpu after parsing 2e9d64a3df05efceee5bb35fd1c056d93c342d49 Enable debuginfo for all 341ac458c72f36aa07168195cacd4d082e51683f Upstream debuginfo enablement -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040/files/3cd27b9a74ef7b8410458c93efde1a64c3882fbf..341ac458c72f36aa07168195cacd4d082e51683f You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Upstream debuginfo enablement (PR #3040)
Would be great if https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3042 could also be fixed at the same time as it touches the same logic. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040#issuecomment-2058887932 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Upstream debuginfo enablement (PR #3040)
Like #3040, this would need to pass with `%_enable_debug_packages 1` in the main macros file (currently it fails a bunch). It's an interesting solution, but I don't see making it any less magic, perhaps to the contrary. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040#issuecomment-2058766440 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Upstream debuginfo enablement (PR #3040)
An alternative implementation to #3036 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040#issuecomment-2058639717 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Upstream debuginfo enablement (PR #3040)
! This removes the %ifnarch noarch check. We need to find a solution for this
before merging (or decise it is just an optimization we dont really need)
All these years, enabling debuginfo has required distros to hijack the spec
%install section with a macro like this:
%install %{?_enable_debug_packages:%{?buildsubdir:%{debug_package}}}\
%%install\
%{nil}
This for a widely used, longtime upstream supported feature is just gross, and
also very non-obvious, feeble and whatnot. And totally prevents the new
append/prepend options from being used with %install.
Turn this isto a proper macro that drops the package definition into a
.SPECPART file. This way debuginfo can be part of the %install script without
messing up the parsing.
Fixes: #2204
Fixes: #1878
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040
-- Commit Summary --
* DONT Upstream debuginfo enablement DONT
-- File Changes --
M macros.in (6)
M tests/data/macros.debug (4)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040.diff
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3...@github.com
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
