On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 01:15:14AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Michael Cronenworth wrote: > > > Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> How would you suggest we implement this? rm -rf the stuff in %post? > >> (Yuck!!!) As I understand it, the symbols will be bloating the main > >> packages and not be in subpackages. (Debuginfo subpackages are what we > >> have now.) > > > > It would be nice if the minidebuginfo data was stored similar to > > debuginfo data. That way spins could easily rm -rf the minidebuginfo > > folder to keep images smaller. > > You apparently didn't get it: running rm -rf on files owned by a package on > the spin is NOT a serious option! Among other things, it will break > DeltaRPMs and rpm -Va, it does not persist on package updates and thus > creates inconsistencies when (inevitably) some packages are updated and > others are not, and it's just wrong. > A pie in the sky option might be to have minidebuginfo/debuginfo reside in the same package as the binaries it belongs to but in separate files which are marked in the rpm filelist. Then rpm could have a --nodebuginfo similar to how it has --nodoc now. Not sure if that's either (1) something the rpm team would go for or (2) something that could be available in a time frame that the minidebuginfo authors would find acceptable. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgptbY4__oB24.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
