Re: [Cooker] debug files in normal packages
> Neither do I. Probably because I don't know the intention of creating > those debug info yet. Is this something new from stock rpm 4.2? Apparently, but I am not sure ... I will ask on the maintainers list ... > If so, > I'd guess the name "debug" is chosen because Red Hat don't use this as > package name. And I guess that (even excluding all the other distros) Redhat must be the only people that make RPMS? Since they have the most monolithic packages, I don't think they should only use their own package names for smoething like this. I mean if the do that, then they might in the same wsay decide that all release numbers in existence are composed only of numeric characters!
Re: [Cooker] debug files in normal packages
On 2003-06-08(Sun) 16:47:37 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > You can use > > > > %define _enable_debug_packages 0 > > > > to avoid it for now. > > > > I don't like making uninformed decisions, which is why I asked the > question above. But IMHO this is a bug in rpm, they should use a name > which is guaranteed not to conflict with any other potential subpackages. > It's been a royal waste of time so far, and I don't see any benefits yet > Neither do I. Probably because I don't know the intention of creating those debug info yet. Is this something new from stock rpm 4.2? If so, I'd guess the name "debug" is chosen because Red Hat don't use this as package name. Abel > > -- Abel Cheung Linux counter #256983 | http://counter.li.org GPG Key: (0xC67186FF) | http://deaddog.org/gpg.asc Key fingerprint: 671C C7AE EFB5 110C D6D1 41EE 4152 E1F1 C671 86FF pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] debug files in normal packages
>> BTW, is there actually any real use for these debug packages. I had a >> samba3-debug package (containing benchmark/validation tools), which I >> now had to rename, and add provides/obsoletes for also. >> >> They could at least have chosen a better name (-rpm_debug or >> something) which is guaranteed not to conflict with other package >> names ... > > You can use > > %define _enable_debug_packages 0 > > to avoid it for now. > I don't like making uninformed decisions, which is why I asked the question above. But IMHO this is a bug in rpm, they should use a name which is guaranteed not to conflict with any other potential subpackages. It's been a royal waste of time so far, and I don't see any benefits yet
Re: [Cooker] debug files in normal packages
On 2003-06-08(Sun) 12:41:07 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > while %_libdir/* is not much better than using > > > > %files > > /* > > It's much better. > /* would own many directories owned by other packages (mainly filesystem), > whereas for any package that doesn't have lib subpackages, %_libdir/* is > perfectly valid, as it will only own files the package should own. OK, our opinion about quality are too different, I think we shouldn't discuss about that anymore. I don't want to go into heated argument. > BTW, is there actually any real use for these debug packages. I had a > samba3-debug package (containing benchmark/validation tools), which I now > had to rename, and add provides/obsoletes for also. > > They could at least have chosen a better name (-rpm_debug or something) > which is guaranteed not to conflict with other package names ... You can use %define _enable_debug_packages 0 to avoid it for now. Abel > > Buchan > > > -- Abel Cheung Linux counter #256983 | http://counter.li.org GPG Key: (0xC67186FF) | http://deaddog.org/gpg.asc Key fingerprint: 671C C7AE EFB5 110C D6D1 41EE 4152 E1F1 C671 86FF pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] debug files in normal packages
> It's the glob. For better packaging, you would at least use something
> like
>
> %{_libdir}/%{name}
> %{_libdir}/whatever
Why??? Until now, we knew that there would only ever be files that needed
to be in the package there. What happens when rpm decides they now want
unstripped copies of binaries in %_bindir or something?
>
> while %_libdir/* is not much better than using
>
> %files
> /*
It's much better.
/* would own many directories owned by other packages (mainly filesystem),
whereas for any package that doesn't have lib subpackages, %_libdir/* is
perfectly valid, as it will only own files the package should own.
BTW, is there actually any real use for these debug packages. I had a
samba3-debug package (containing benchmark/validation tools), which I now
had to rename, and add provides/obsoletes for also.
They could at least have chosen a better name (-rpm_debug or something)
which is guaranteed not to conflict with other package names ...
Buchan
Re: [Cooker] debug files in normal packages
On 2003-06-08(Sun) 01:34:07 +0200, Olivier Thauvin wrote:
> > > Is it possible to have an automatic macros in rpm which make:
> > > %exclude %_libdir/debug
> > >
> > > Somes specs have in %files:
> > > %_libdir/*
> > > and rpm stupidly include debug files !
> >
> > Of course, automatic exclusion would be nice too, but badly packaged
> > RPMs should also be fixed too.
>
> Sure, but how do you fix a non existing issue, this appears only because rpm
> made debug package now. This dir is created by rpm itself.
It's the glob. For better packaging, you would at least use something
like
%{_libdir}/%{name}
%{_libdir}/whatever
while %_libdir/* is not much better than using
%files
/*
Abel
> > Abel
> >
> > > --
> > > Linux pour Mac !? Enfin le moyen de transformer
> > > une pomme en véritable ordinateur. - JL.
> > > Olivier Thauvin - http://nanardon.homelinux.org/
>
> --
> Linux pour Mac !? Enfin le moyen de transformer
> une pomme en véritable ordinateur. - JL.
> Olivier Thauvin - http://nanardon.homelinux.org/
>
>
--
Abel Cheung
Linux counter #256983 | http://counter.li.org
GPG Key: (0xC67186FF) | http://deaddog.org/gpg.asc
Key fingerprint: 671C C7AE EFB5 110C D6D1 41EE 4152 E1F1 C671 86FF
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] debug files in normal packages
Le Samedi 07 Juin 2003 16:01, R.I.P. Deaddog a écrit : > On 2003-06-07(Sat) 05:14:47 +0200, Olivier Thauvin wrote: > > Is it possible to have an automatic macros in rpm which make: > > %exclude %_libdir/debug > > > > Somes specs have in %files: > > %_libdir/* > > and rpm stupidly include debug files ! > > Of course, automatic exclusion would be nice too, but badly packaged > RPMs should also be fixed too. Sure, but how do you fix a non existing issue, this appears only because rpm made debug package now. This dir is created by rpm itself. > > Abel > > > -- > > Linux pour Mac !? Enfin le moyen de transformer > > une pomme en véritable ordinateur. - JL. > > Olivier Thauvin - http://nanardon.homelinux.org/ -- Linux pour Mac !? Enfin le moyen de transformer une pomme en véritable ordinateur. - JL. Olivier Thauvin - http://nanardon.homelinux.org/
Re: [Cooker] debug files in normal packages
On 2003-06-07(Sat) 05:14:47 +0200, Olivier Thauvin wrote: > Is it possible to have an automatic macros in rpm which make: > %exclude %_libdir/debug > > Somes specs have in %files: > %_libdir/* > and rpm stupidly include debug files ! Of course, automatic exclusion would be nice too, but badly packaged RPMs should also be fixed too. Abel > -- > Linux pour Mac !? Enfin le moyen de transformer > une pomme en véritable ordinateur. - JL. > Olivier Thauvin - http://nanardon.homelinux.org/ > > -- Abel Cheung Linux counter #256983 | http://counter.li.org GPG Key: (0xC67186FF) | http://deaddog.org/gpg.asc Key fingerprint: 671C C7AE EFB5 110C D6D1 41EE 4152 E1F1 C671 86FF pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
