debuginfo for sub packages (Help with RPM SPEC files)
 

Hello everyone,

I am having a hard time finding documentation which explains this. I
have a spec file which generates several subpackages (-classify,
-clamav, etc.). I have this working fine. The problem is I am only
getting a debuginfo package for the main package. This contains all the
information, but because of how things are named (installed) it doesn't
work for debugging tools.

How do I go about telling RPM via SPEC to separate the appropriate files
into their own debuginfo package for each subpackageS?

Thank you,
Trever
--
If it's there and you can see it, it's REAL If it's there and you can't
see it, it's TRANSPARENT If it's not there and you can see it, it's
VIRTUAL If it's not there and you can't see it, it's GONE! -- Unknown


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

debuginfo for sub packages (Help with RPM SPEC files)
 

2010/6/16 Trever L. Adams <trever.adams@gmail.com>:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am having a hard time finding documentation which explains this. I
> have a spec file which generates several subpackages (-classify,
> -clamav, etc.). I have this working fine. The problem is I am only
> getting a debuginfo package for the main package. This contains all the
> information, but because of how things are named (installed) it doesn't
> work for debugging tools.
>
> How do I go about telling RPM via SPEC to separate the appropriate files
> into their own debuginfo package for each subpackageS?
>
> Thank you,
> Trever
> --
> If it's there and you can see it, it's REAL If it's there and you can't
> see it, it's TRANSPARENT If it's not there and you can see it, it's
> VIRTUAL If it's not there and you can't see it, it's GONE! -- Unknown
>
>
>
> --
This is not needed under most circumstance, currently only kernel have
serveral debuginfo subpackages. If you really want to do it, you can
tweak find-debuginfo.sh, but such tweak is normally unaccepted in
fedora except you have compelling reason.

Chen Lei
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

debuginfo for sub packages (Help with RPM SPEC files)
 

It's normal to get a single foo-debuginfo package from a foo.src.rpm.
Please explain exactly why this is a problem for you.


Thanks,
Roland
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

debuginfo for sub packages (Help with RPM SPEC files)
 

Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> writes:

> It's normal to get a single foo-debuginfo package from a foo.src.rpm.
> Please explain exactly why this is a problem for you.

One possible reason is RPM-level conflicts between concurrently
installed multilib debuginfo RPMs, such as glibc.i686 and
glibc.x86_64.

- FChE
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

debuginfo for sub packages (Help with RPM SPEC files)
 

On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 05:10 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> It's normal to get a single foo-debuginfo package from a foo.src.rpm.
> Please explain exactly why this is a problem for you.

I can't speak to Trever's case, but I can say that it's pretty
irritating to need debuginfo for every compiler in gcc when all I really
need is debuginfo for libgcc:

atropine:~% stat -c %s /usr/lib/debug/lib/libgcc_s-*debug
327080
atropine:~% rpm -qf --qf="%{size} %{name}
" /usr/lib/debug/lib/libgcc_s*debug
329486271 gcc-debuginfo

So subpackaged debuginfo would actually be pretty nice. gcc is
admittedly something of an outlier here, I admit; I don't think most
packages need subpackaged debuginfo, but the ones that do...

- ajax
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

debuginfo for sub packages (Help with RPM SPEC files)
 

On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 05:10 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > It's normal to get a single foo-debuginfo package from a foo.src.rpm.
> > Please explain exactly why this is a problem for you.
>
> I can't speak to Trever's case, but I can say that it's pretty
> irritating to need debuginfo for every compiler in gcc when all I really
> need is debuginfo for libgcc:
>
> atropine:~% stat -c %s /usr/lib/debug/lib/libgcc_s-*debug
> 327080
> atropine:~% rpm -qf --qf="%{size} %{name}
" /usr/lib/debug/lib/libgcc_s*debug
> 329486271 gcc-debuginfo
>
> So subpackaged debuginfo would actually be pretty nice. gcc is
> admittedly something of an outlier here, I admit; I don't think most
> packages need subpackaged debuginfo, but the ones that do...

You can join this bug:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=185590

--
Matt

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

debuginfo for sub packages (Help with RPM SPEC files)
 

On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:32 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > It's normal to get a single foo-debuginfo package from a foo.src.rpm.
> > Please explain exactly why this is a problem for you.
>
> One possible reason is RPM-level conflicts between concurrently
> installed multilib debuginfo RPMs, such as glibc.i686 and
> glibc.x86_64.

I have an open bug on this one too:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528419

--
Matt

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

debuginfo for sub packages (Help with RPM SPEC files)
 

On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 05:10 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > It's normal to get a single foo-debuginfo package from a foo.src.rpm.
> > Please explain exactly why this is a problem for you.
>
> I can't speak to Trever's case, but I can say that it's pretty
> irritating to need debuginfo for every compiler in gcc when all I really
> need is debuginfo for libgcc:
>
> atropine:~% stat -c %s /usr/lib/debug/lib/libgcc_s-*debug
> 327080
> atropine:~% rpm -qf --qf="%{size} %{name}
" /usr/lib/debug/lib/libgcc_s*debug
> 329486271 gcc-debuginfo
>
> So subpackaged debuginfo would actually be pretty nice. gcc is
> admittedly something of an outlier here, I admit; I don't think most
> packages need subpackaged debuginfo, but the ones that do...

Wasn't debuginfofs supposed to solve that ?

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

debuginfo for sub packages (Help with RPM SPEC files)
 

On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:47 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 05:10 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > It's normal to get a single foo-debuginfo package from a foo.src.rpm.
> > > Please explain exactly why this is a problem for you.
> >
> > I can't speak to Trever's case, but I can say that it's pretty
> > irritating to need debuginfo for every compiler in gcc when all I really
> > need is debuginfo for libgcc:
> >
> > atropine:~% stat -c %s /usr/lib/debug/lib/libgcc_s-*debug
> > 327080
> > atropine:~% rpm -qf --qf="%{size} %{name}
" /usr/lib/debug/lib/libgcc_s*debug
> > 329486271 gcc-debuginfo
> >
> > So subpackaged debuginfo would actually be pretty nice. gcc is
> > admittedly something of an outlier here, I admit; I don't think most
> > packages need subpackaged debuginfo, but the ones that do...
>
> Wasn't debuginfofs supposed to solve that ?

Yes, debuginfofs would be an even better solution, but it is not
operational yet.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DebuginfoFS

--
Matt

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

debuginfo for sub packages (Help with RPM SPEC files)
 

On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:47 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > I can't speak to Trever's case, but I can say that it's pretty
> > irritating to need debuginfo for every compiler in gcc when all I really
> > need is debuginfo for libgcc:
> >
> > atropine:~% stat -c %s /usr/lib/debug/lib/libgcc_s-*debug
> > 327080
> > atropine:~% rpm -qf --qf="%{size} %{name}
" /usr/lib/debug/lib/libgcc_s*debug
> > 329486271 gcc-debuginfo
> >
> > So subpackaged debuginfo would actually be pretty nice. gcc is
> > admittedly something of an outlier here, I admit; I don't think most
> > packages need subpackaged debuginfo, but the ones that do...
>
> Wasn't debuginfofs supposed to solve that ?

In the sense of reducing disk needs on the clients, yes. But on the
server, you'd still be unpacking >300M of gcc-debuginfo just to get at
libgcc's debuginfo. So subpackaging debuginfo would still be a win even
with debuginfofs, since you'd be improving the cache behaviour on the
server.

- ajax
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel