Hi,
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 08:53:43AM +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> However, a better alternative would be for flatpak to consume the
> upstream version as a git submodule (that gets dist:ed with the
> tarball). That is what flatpak does with some other external
> dependencies. Sometimes it
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 09:24:42PM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
[...]
> Currently, debugedit.c is GPLv2+, hashtab.[ch] are LGPLv2+, and both
> libelf and libdw used by debugedit are (GPLv2+ or LGPLv3+).
Minor correction: hashtab.c is LGPLv2+, hashtab.h is GPLv2+.
The same stands for more
* Neal Gompa:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 10:19 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> The code in rpm debugedit only deals with 128, 160, 256, 384 or 512
>> bit build-id lengths. See the hashing algorithms it tries. So making
>> sure we support at least those lengths will make sure we don't regress
>> in
On 2/19/21 10:23 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi all,
rpm debugedit has grown from a quick hack that simply listed/replaced
some files/strings to an almost full blown DWARF reader/writer. It is
now also used outside rpm(build). Debian packages it separately and
Flatpak builder has an embedded copy
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 10:19 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> Hi Neal,
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 09:13:04PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 6:59 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > rpm-ecosystem@lists.rpm.org wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:23:58PM +0100, Mark Wielaard
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 1:57 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 10:49:03AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > [...]
> >> I'm also not comfortable with the idea of having a part of RPM itself
> >> broken out and transferred to a project with subpar
Hi Neal,
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 09:13:04PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 6:59 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > rpm-ecosystem@lists.rpm.org wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:23:58PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > The main obstacle is that tools/debugedit.c currently
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 6:59 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> rpm-ecosystem@lists.rpm.org wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:23:58PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > The main obstacle is that tools/debugedit.c currently depends on rpm:
> >
> > $ git grep -h rpm tools/debugedit.c
> > #include
Hi,
rpm-ecosystem@lists.rpm.org wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:23:58PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> The main obstacle is that tools/debugedit.c currently depends on rpm:
>
> $ git grep -h rpm tools/debugedit.c
> #include
> #include
> if (rpmDigestLength(algorithm) == build_id_size)
Hi,
Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 10:49:03AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> [...]
>> I'm also not comfortable with the idea of having a part of RPM itself
>> broken out and transferred to a project with subpar contribution
>> practices. Most of Sourceware still relies on the email
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 10:49:03AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
[...]
> Splitting out from rpm would make the rpm debuginfo support a bit more
> painful to support for non-Linux systems, but I guess most don't care
> about that. :(
Why should making debugedit either a part of elfutils or a separate
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:23:58PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> rpm debugedit has grown from a quick hack that simply listed/replaced
> some files/strings to an almost full blown DWARF reader/writer. It is
> now also used outside rpm(build). Debian packages it separately and
>
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 3:24 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> rpm debugedit has grown from a quick hack that simply listed/replaced
> some files/strings to an almost full blown DWARF reader/writer. It is
> now also used outside rpm(build). Debian packages it separately and
> Flatpak
Hi all,
rpm debugedit has grown from a quick hack that simply listed/replaced
some files/strings to an almost full blown DWARF reader/writer. It is
now also used outside rpm(build). Debian packages it separately and
Flatpak builder has an embedded copy it uses to post-process debuginfo.
It is
14 matches
Mail list logo
