--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/180#issuecomment-300785372___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Merged #180.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/180#event-1078211980___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Had a chat with Mark on irc, he's fine with this.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/180#issuecomment-300784533___
Done. This still needs a ACK from Mark, though.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/180#issuecomment-297672144___
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
If it's by design, then it's fine. It works as expected.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@mlschroe Could you please rebase the PR against the current master so that
either @ffesti or @pmatilai can merge it?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
This is by design. The sources go into the main debuginfo package, all other
debuginfo packages get an require to the main one.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request.
I've tested the following combinations:
* debugsource + debuginfo subpackages
* debugsource + single debuginfo subpackage
* single debuginfo subpackage + no debugsource subpackage
* debuginfo subpackages + no debugsource subpackage
The first
Minor nits aside, conceptually I've nothing against merging this. But then I'm
also trying to maintain a hands-off approach to the debuginfo business, so
others (Mark in particular), pay attention please.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email
pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +return pkg && pkg->fileList ? pkg : NULL;
+}
+
+/* add a requires for package "to" into package "from". */
+static void addDebugRequires(Package from, Package to)
+{
+const char *name;
+char *evr, *isaprov;
+name =
pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +RPMTAG_PACKAGER,
+RPMTAG_DISTRIBUTION,
+RPMTAG_DISTURL,
+RPMTAG_VENDOR,
+RPMTAG_ICON,
+RPMTAG_URL,
+RPMTAG_VCS,
+RPMTAG_CHANGELOGTIME,
+RPMTAG_CHANGELOGNAME,
+RPMTAG_CHANGELOGTEXT,
+RPMTAG_PREFIXES,
+
pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +return pkg && pkg->fileList ? pkg : NULL;
+}
+
+/* add a requires for package "to" into package "from". */
+static void addDebugRequires(Package from, Package to)
+{
+const char *name;
+char *evr, *isaprov;
+name =
pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +
+/* add the debug dwz files to package pkg.
+ * return 1 if something was added, 0 otherwise. */
+static int addDebugDwz(Package pkg, char *buildroot)
+{
+int ret = 0;
+char *path = NULL;
+struct stat sbuf;
+
+rasprintf(,
pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +
+static rpmTag copyTagsForDebugMain[] = {
+RPMTAG_ARCH,
+RPMTAG_SUMMARY,
+RPMTAG_DESCRIPTION,
+RPMTAG_GROUP,
+/* see addTargets */
+RPMTAG_OS,
+RPMTAG_PLATFORM,
+RPMTAG_OPTFLAGS,
+};
+
+/* this is a hack: patch the
@mlschroe pushed 1 commit.
d7bfb25 Also add directories to split debuginfo packages
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
This adds support for SUSE style debuginfo packages. Due to the changes in rpm
upstream the patch had to be pretty much rewritten from scratch.
As the new functionality is off per default the patch cannot break anything.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
16 matches
Mail list logo
