On 26.11.2013 03:55, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
There were multiple Bugs suggesting the same, they are linked together for
example from this one from 2005. But it all got WONTFIXed:
Debug info RPMs do not require exact maching binary rpm
Le Mar 26 novembre 2013 03:55, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
There were multiple Bugs suggesting the same, they are linked together
for
example from this one from 2005. But it all got WONTFIXed:
Debug info RPMs do not require exact maching binary rpm
Isn't it should be implemented implicitly in RPM?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On 26.11.2013 11:50, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Mar 26 novembre 2013 03:55, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
There were multiple Bugs suggesting the same, they are linked together
for
example from this one from 2005. But it all got WONTFIXed:
Debug info RPMs do not require exact
On 26.11.2013 11:50, Christopher Meng wrote:
Isn't it should be implemented implicitly in RPM?
It is just a proof of concept/idea. Will hardly be implemented like
this, if something similar is going to be implemented.
Sandro
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sandro Mani wrote:
[1] http://smani.fedorapeople.org/somepackage.spec
Yeah, that hack looks like it could work, sorta. If you have multiple
subpackages installed, having only one subpackage of the correct version and
the others of wrong versions will still be satisfying the dependency in the
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:39:38 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
Here is a quick and dirty spec implementing the idea I described:
[1]. From what I can see it behaves correctly with any combination
of packages and subpackages installed. Am I missing something?
[1]
On 26.11.2013 19:55, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Sandro Mani wrote:
[1] http://smani.fedorapeople.org/somepackage.spec
Yeah, that hack looks like it could work, sorta. If you have multiple
subpackages installed, having only one subpackage of the correct version and
the others of wrong versions will
On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 16:50:51 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
A nice solution to ensure consistency could be to have each
debuginfo package require the exact version of the base package
installed. Since the debuginfo package however cannot know which
base (sub)package it should depend on, I wonder
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
There were multiple Bugs suggesting the same, they are linked together for
example from this one from 2005. But it all got WONTFIXed:
Debug info RPMs do not require exact maching binary rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=151598
The problem with those
On Sun, 2013-11-24 at 16:50 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
From abrt-reported bugs where
people generate the backtraces locally, it occasionally happens that
they send incomplete backtraces due to mismatching debugsymbols, and
it
would certainly help increasing the quality of backtraces if such
On 24.11.2013 17:55, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Sun, 2013-11-24 at 16:50 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
From abrt-reported bugs where
people generate the backtraces locally, it occasionally happens that
they send incomplete backtraces due to mismatching debugsymbols, and
it
would certainly help
On 11/24/2013 09:13 AM, Sandro Mani wrote:
Oh, I never noticed this! I take the reason the debuginfo packages do
not live in the normal repos is that one wants to reduce the
repodata/filelist size? Could the current situation be improved by an
approach similar to:
- Move the debuginfo repo
On 11/24/2013 10:51 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
On 11/24/2013 09:13 AM, Sandro Mani wrote:
Oh, I never noticed this! I take the reason the debuginfo packages do
not live in the normal repos is that one wants to reduce the
repodata/filelist size? Could the current situation be improved by an
On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 16:50:51 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
Hi,
I wondered what the reason is that debuginfo packages seem to enter the
repos only at the successive push compared to the regular packages,
which ultimately means that debuginfo packages are available in updates
ca 1 day after
On 24.11.2013 21:52, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 16:50:51 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
Hi,
I wondered what the reason is that debuginfo packages seem to enter the
repos only at the successive push compared to the regular packages,
which ultimately means that debuginfo packages
16 matches
Mail list logo
