Re: [PATCHv3] Update debuginfo generation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 10:40 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 04:38:25PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > 
> > 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 with this and it's forward looking calls are now out of date.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.
> > ---
> > v3: Adds the new flag to never touch the buildids. I think I got the
> > BuildConflicts tag correct?

Yes, I believe so. Version 4.13.0.1-19 has all the fixes needed.

> Thanks for the work!  The patch seems reasonable to me.  I will let Mark
> comment on it too.

Yes, it looks like a good cleanup. I am glad this gets rid of the
AFTER_LINK patch which assumed that double debugedit invocation is
idempotent. Which it isn't anymore now that we want to generate unique
debug-names and build-ids. We still have to figure out some way to
enable that for the kernel builds though. I think rpm needs to become a
little smarter about finding out which files might embed other images
that might contain build-ids (the vdsos, the compressed kernel modules
and the compressed kernel image itself for which the kernel.spec does
contain workaround currently).

> > diff --git a/kernel.spec b/kernel.spec
> > index 27c4fe13..06fcf3d4 100644
> > --- a/kernel.spec
> > +++ b/kernel.spec
> > @@ -395,7 +395,16 @@ BuildRequires: pciutils-devel gettext ncurses-devel
> >  BuildConflicts: rhbuildsys(DiskFree) < 500Mb
> >  %if %{with_debuginfo}
> >  BuildRequires: rpm-build, elfutils
> > -%define debuginfo_args --strict-build-id -r
> > +BuildConflicts: rpm < 4.13.0.1-19
> > +# Most of these should be enabled after more investigation
> > +%undefine _include_minidebuginfo

I think with 4.13.0.1-19 you can drop this undefine. Because it has:
 - Minisymtab should only be added for executables or shared libraries.
Or you could first do a version with it undefined and then remove it in
a later patch if you want to double check.

Thanks,

Mark
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Archive]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [USB]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux