On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:53:10PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 04/05/2017 07:52 AM, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 02:36:48PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> From: Laura Abbott <labbott(a)redhat.com>
>> Once upon a time, the kernel needed a lot of special handling to
>> generate proper debuginfo as the kernel was ahead in technology. These
>> days, rpm has improved debuginfo support. The kernel has not kept up
>> with this and it's forward looking calls are now out of date. Switch to
>> more standard invocations of debuginfo calls.
>> Bringing this out from the previous thread. This drops the special invocations
>> of find-debuginfo.sh and debugedit. The results seem to be reasonable as far
>> as I can tell.
> Looking at the /usr/lib/rpm/macros and the find_debuginfo stuff in
> particular, those pieces of your patch makes sense to drop and replace with
> the find_debuginfo_opts.
> I am curious about the AFTER_LINK patch. What is the reason to drop it?
> The patch probably needs to be dropped as either stale or integrated
> differently upstream, just thought it would be nice to have it documented.
The purpose of AFTER_LINK was to run the debugedit command. If we're running
the standard find-debuginfo.sh, it calls debugedit already so there should
be no reason to need the command at all.
Ok, sounds good. Thanks!
> Can I assume your testing was install the debuginfo package and have an
> application like gdb or crash read in the symbols to verify the contents?
Yes, that's roughly what I did.
> I think this patch is a good direction forward, just a little nitpick in
>  - Adding the VERSION and RELEASE stuff to find_debuginfo_opts must have
> been painful. It also makes it hard to read. I was curious if a macro
> would work there, where we pass a list of files and the macro spits out the
> files with the VERSION, RELEASE, _arch, _debug junk appended to it?
> This might make it easier to add to later and maintain?
It's really not pretty, I spent at least a full day figuring out the
regexes because I had no idea how they work. I'm sorely tempted to
put some ascii art warning of the horrors within. More macros might help
things, I'll see what I can do. What I'd really like is a find-debuginfo.sh
flag to add the buildid automatically for the filtering. This might turn
into a feature request or a patch if I get around to it.
That was my fear, it was so painful that attempt at future changes, scares
folks off. :-(
So I just spent some time trying to explore your changes a little bit. I
thought the VERSION and RELEASE stuff was for the kernel but in fact it
really is only for the tools (perf and kernel-tools).
Looking at current kernel-tools-debuginfo doesn't show any VERSION and
RELEASE stuff. Your patch seems to add that. I guess I am curious why? If
you can only have one version of the tools installed at one time, what does
VERSION and RELEASE provide us?
My thinking is why don't all the other userspace applications need similar
Sorry for being picky, just trying to understand those particular changes.
The rest of the patch looks fine to me.
> kernel mailing list -- kernel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org