Re: RFC: Minor specfile rework for rawhide
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 11:20:17PM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: Christopher Brown wrote: On 21/01/2008, Adam Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://people.freedesktop.org/~ajax/kernel-autopatch.patch Based on something I did for the xserver specfile. Essentially this makes it so you only have to name the patches once, in the order you want to apply them, which makes it both easier to work with and harder to forget things. I've tried to make this as friendly and robust as possible, including bailing out appropriately when faced with a bad patch, and explicitly naming patches that fail to apply right at the end of build output. Feedback would be appreciated, even if it's of the form no, that's gross. First glance says oh hell yeah, check it in. The magic to only apply linux-2.6-compile-fixes.patch if there's something in the file disappeared, but other than that it looks ok to me too. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: RFC: Minor specfile rework for rawhide
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 01:47:09PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote: On 01/21/2008 05:22 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: http://people.freedesktop.org/~ajax/kernel-autopatch.patch Using the below script, based on what you suggested, we can add lines like this to specify patch options: Patch101: a.patch PATCH101_OPTS=-R -F2 And this to skip a patch: Patch101: a.patch PATCH101_OPTS=SKIP With this change I'd say go for it. The amount of voodoo in the kernel spec file is both scary, and awesome at the same time. I love it :) Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
RE: ich nochmal
Hallo nochmal also der neue online TV Sender ist auf http://www.doenertreff.de echt super .. mario barth michael mittermeier.. usw und hammer musik die single seite wo ich gesagt habe ist auf http://adultfriendfinder.com/go/g869222-pmo oder auf http://adultfriendfinder.com/go/p409433 einfach mal anmelden ach ja funny Bilder gibt es auf http://www.doenertreff.de/doenertreff/Babys.htm oderhttp://www.doenertreff.de/doenertreff/Tiere.htm oder optische täuschungen http://www.doenertreff.de/doenertreff/Tauschungen.htm einfach mal anschauen. gruß PS: grüß alle von mir, ach ja und werbebanner für deine Homepage, mit denen du Geld Verdienen kannst, und die auch wirklich ausbezahlen, oder wenn Du über 1000 Besucher in der Stunde willst!! das alles findest du auf http://www.doenertreff.de/besuchertausch echt gut! ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
debuginfo ppc.
So I got wondering why PowerPC debuginfos are so much bigger than x86. -rw-rw-r-- 1 davej davej 30739918 2007-12-11 20:58 kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.24-0.56.rc3.git3.fc9.i686.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 davej davej 82997941 2007-12-11 21:02 kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.24-0.56.rc3.git3.fc9.ppc64.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 davej davej 70527491 2007-12-11 21:08 kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.24-0.56.rc3.git3.fc9.ppc.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 davej davej 29881807 2007-12-11 21:06 kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.24-0.56.rc3.git3.fc9.x86_64.rpm I browsed a few of the internals, and it looks like the ppc variant includes a complete source tree in /usr/src/debug Any reason for ppc being different? Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: debuginfo ppc.
I browsed a few of the internals, and it looks like the ppc variant includes
a complete source tree
in /usr/src/debug
It's normal to have every source file referenced by any binary's DWARF info.
for x in */debug/kernel-debuginfo-2*.rpm; do for y in $x `echo $x | sed
s,debuginfo,debuginfo-common,`; do printf %-75s $y; rpm -qlp $y | grep
'^/usr/src/' | wc -l; done;done
i386/debug/kernel-debuginfo-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.i586.rpm 0
i386/debug/kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.i586.rpm 9162
i386/debug/kernel-debuginfo-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.i686.rpm 0
i386/debug/kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.i686.rpm 9165
ppc64/debug/kernel-debuginfo-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.ppc64.rpm 0
ppc64/debug/kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.ppc64.rpm8809
ppc/debug/kernel-debuginfo-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.ppc.rpm 0
ppc/debug/kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.ppc.rpm8574
x86_64/debug/kernel-debuginfo-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.x86_64.rpm 0
x86_64/debug/kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.x86_64.rpm 8862
Any reason for ppc being different?
It's not a very different number of source files.
Let's wonder about the two biggest files in each rpm.
for x in */debug/kernel-debuginfo-2*.rpm; do for y in $x `echo $x | sed
s,debuginfo,debuginfo-common,`; do echo $y:; rpm -qlpv $y | sort -n -k 5,5 |
tail -2; done;done
i386/debug/kernel-debuginfo-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.i586.rpm:
-rwxr--r--1 rootroot 10014436 Jan 21 16:14
/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9/kernel/fs/xfs/xfs.ko.debug
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 77065021 Jan 21 16:11
/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9/vmlinux
i386/debug/kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.i586.rpm:
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 802044 Oct 9 13:31
/usr/src/debug/kernel-2.6.23/linux-2.6.23.i586/drivers/usb/misc/emi62_fw_s.h
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 875265 Jan 21 15:55
/usr/src/debug/kernel-2.6.23/linux-2.6.23.i586/fs/nls/nls_cp949.c
i386/debug/kernel-debuginfo-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.i686.rpm:
-rwxr--r--1 rootroot 10013800 Jan 21 18:44
/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9/kernel/fs/xfs/xfs.ko.debug
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 77048944 Jan 21 18:37
/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9/vmlinux
i386/debug/kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.i686.rpm:
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 802044 Oct 9 13:31
/usr/src/debug/kernel-2.6.23/linux-2.6.23.i686/drivers/usb/misc/emi62_fw_s.h
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 875265 Jan 21 15:57
/usr/src/debug/kernel-2.6.23/linux-2.6.23.i686/fs/nls/nls_cp949.c
ppc64/debug/kernel-debuginfo-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.ppc64.rpm:
-rwxr--r--1 rootroot 13748248 Jan 21 17:09
/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9/kernel/fs/xfs/xfs.ko.debug
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 67126229 Jan 21 16:30
/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9/vmlinux
ppc64/debug/kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.ppc64.rpm:
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 59098072 Jan 21 17:06
/usr/lib/debug/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.debug
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 59182336 Jan 21 17:06
/usr/lib/debug/boot/vmlinux-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9kdump.debug
ppc/debug/kernel-debuginfo-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.ppc.rpm:
-rwxr--r--1 rootroot 9462912 Jan 21 16:29
/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9/kernel/fs/xfs/xfs.ko.debug
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 46764240 Jan 21 16:10
/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9/vmlinux
ppc/debug/kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.ppc.rpm:
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 42107088 Jan 21 16:26
/usr/lib/debug/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.debug
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 43539424 Jan 21 16:26
/usr/lib/debug/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9smp.debug
x86_64/debug/kernel-debuginfo-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.x86_64.rpm:
-rwxr--r--1 rootroot 13447688 Jan 21 16:06
/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9/kernel/fs/xfs/xfs.ko.debug
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 57877978 Jan 21 16:04
/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9/vmlinux
x86_64/debug/kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.24-0.164.rc8.git4.fc9.x86_64.rpm:
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 802044 Oct 9 13:31
/usr/src/debug/kernel-2.6.23/linux-2.6.23.x86_64/drivers/usb/misc/emi62_fw_s.h
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 875265 Jan 21 15:54
/usr/src/debug/kernel-2.6.23/linux-2.6.23.x86_64/fs/nls/nls_cp949.c
So the funny bit is that kernel-debuginfo-common on ppc{,64} got the
.debug files for two /boot/vmlinu[xz] files. Those ought to be in the
kernel-debuginfo and kernel-kdump-debuginfo rpms if they're anywhere.
The placement of those .debug files is
