Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=151598 The problem with those dependencies is that -debuginfo covers all the subpackages, so which one should it require? All of them? That's more often than not NOT what I want. (E.g., do we really want to force everyone to install gcc-* just because ABRT/DrKonqi/whatever wants to install the (usually unneeded) debugging information for libgcc? Getting gcc-debuginfo dragged in is bad enough!) 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? Sandro [1] http://smani.fedorapeople.org/somepackage.spec -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=151598 The problem with those dependencies is that -debuginfo covers all the subpackages, so which one should it require? All of them? That's more often than not NOT what I want. Just conflict with all subpackages that do not match the exact debuginfo version Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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
Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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 maching binary rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=151598 The problem with those dependencies is that -debuginfo covers all the subpackages, so which one should it require? All of them? That's more often than not NOT what I want. Just conflict with all subpackages that do not match the exact debuginfo version Regards, Is there some rpm macro magic to list all the (sub)packages defined in a spec? Sandro -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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 -debuginfo package. (And subpackages do not always require each other, so you cannot always require on the EVR-locked inter-subpackage Requires.) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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] http://smani.fedorapeople.org/somepackage.spec There were always intentions to allow installing multiple *-debuginfo.rpm versions at once. This would allow for example examining a core file generated from older binaries (which could be still running when they crashed while newer rpm was installed on disk). Currently it is not possible but one such open Bug with some proposals is: undesired cross-rpm elf build-id duplication due to strict content-hash handling in debugedit.c https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002341 (In ideal case for debug purposes one needs also the matching binary, not just its debuginfo. But in practice the debuginfo should be sufficient.) In reality ABRT solves the problem of multi debuginfo rpms by installing new chroot each time with the needed package versions. This is a bit expensive. Your proposal definitely blocks this multiple *-debuginfo.rpm versions idea. But the multi-version idea has never worked yet and it is not sure it will ever be. Your proposal is sure still better than what we have now. Besides that your proposal has to be implemented into rpm tool code; currently the debuginfo subpackage is implemented only as a rpm macro in /usr/lib/rpm. But that is sure OK. Jan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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 still be satisfying the dependency in the -debuginfo package. (And subpackages do not always require each other, so you cannot always require on the EVR-locked inter-subpackage Requires.) Kevin Kofler Right. Otherwise, I guess the Conflicts approach suggested by Nicolas could work and also handle such cases? But before all this, there is the current problem that debuginfo packages are only updated when using yum, as pointed out by Michael. If debuginfo packages are not shipped in the standard repos, some other solution is needed. I pointed out an approach which could work: - Move the debuginfo repo definitions to separate files - Have a package fedora-release-debug (or similar) install the repo file in /etc/yum.repos.d. The repos would be enabled by default when installed. - Have all debuginfo packages depend on fedora-release-debug - (ugly) Have debuginfo-install install the repo file before proceeding as before. Any thoughts on that? Sandro -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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 whether it could
work if the package and all subpackages should provide something
like: Provides: debuginfo-requirement(%{name}) =
%{version}-%{release}?
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
When I have all supported Fedoras in mock most of the days at least one of
them has debuginfos out of sync (=making nightly testing results invalid).
Jan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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 dependencies is that -debuginfo covers all the subpackages, so which one should it require? All of them? That's more often than not NOT what I want. (E.g., do we really want to force everyone to install gcc-* just because ABRT/DrKonqi/whatever wants to install the (usually unneeded) debugging information for libgcc? Getting gcc-debuginfo dragged in is bad enough!) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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 cases could be avoided This does suck, but the bigger problem is that debuginfo packages are not updated at all - not ever - unless you either a) use yum instead of PackageKit b) manually enable the updates-debug repository So requiring the exact version of the base package will only work if that gets fixed first. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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 increasing the quality of backtraces if such cases could be avoided This does suck, but the bigger problem is that debuginfo packages are not updated at all - not ever - unless you either a) use yum instead of PackageKit b) manually enable the updates-debug repository So requiring the exact version of the base package will only work if that gets fixed first. 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 definitions to separate files - Have a package fedora-release-debug (or similar) install the repo file in /etc/yum.repos.d. The repos would be enabled by default when installed. - Have all debuginfo packages depend on fedora-release-debug - (ugly) Have debuginfo-install install the repo file before proceeding as before. ? Thanks, Sandro -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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 definitions to separate files - Have a package fedora-release-debug (or similar) install the repo file in /etc/yum.repos.d. The repos would be enabled by default when installed. - Have all debuginfo packages depend on fedora-release-debug - (ugly) Have debuginfo-install install the repo file before proceeding as before. ? debuginfo-install does install yum-plugin-auto-update-debug-info, which automatically enables $REPO-debuginfo for each $REPO you have enabled. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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 approach similar to: - Move the debuginfo repo definitions to separate files - Have a package fedora-release-debug (or similar) install the repo file in /etc/yum.repos.d. The repos would be enabled by default when installed. - Have all debuginfo packages depend on fedora-release-debug - (ugly) Have debuginfo-install install the repo file before proceeding as before. ? debuginfo-install does install yum-plugin-auto-update-debug-info, which automatically enables $REPO-debuginfo for each $REPO you have enabled. ... and now I see you're trying to solve this for !yum, e.g. PackageKit. Sorry for the noise... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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 the regular packages. Where did you observe this? On a mirror or on the Fedora Project download server? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: debuginfo packages available in updates later than regular packages.
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 are available in updates ca 1 day after the regular packages. Where did you observe this? On a mirror or on the Fedora Project download server? I am running rawhide and it always happens that updates come one day, and the corresponding debuginfo packages the next day. Actually I'm not sure if this is the case also in stable releases, but I though that was why the debuginfo symbols in various abrt bugs were mismatching. However, I didn't realize that the debuginfo packages were only updated via yum and not via PackageKit (as Michael mentioned before in this thread), so that is probably the more likely cause. As far as the mirror is concerned: just using the mirror which yum picks for me, so I guess the answer is: pretty much any mirror. Sandro -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
