Hi, On Sat, 2021-04-10 at 18:44 +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > [I'm forwarding the mail from Luca who is not subscribed to fedora- > devel] > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 01:38:31PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > Cross-posting to the mailing lists of a few relevant projects. Note that in this version of the email the [N] references in your email don't seem to point anywhere. I found an older variant of the same email which contained: [0] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/18433 [1] https://systemd.io/COREDUMP_PACKAGE_METADATA/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Package_information_on_ELF_objects [3] https://github.com/systemd/package-notes > After an initial discussion [0], recently we have been working on a new > specification [0] to encode rich package-level metadata inside ELF > objects, so that it can be included automatically in generated coredump > files. The prototype to parse this in systemd-coredump and store the > information in systemd-journal is ready for testing and merged > upstream. We are now seeking further comments/opinions/suggestions, as > we have a few months before the next release and thus there's plenty of > time to make incompatible changes to the format and implementation, if > required. > > A proposal to use this by default for all packages built in Fedora 35 > has been submitted [1]. > > The Fedora Wiki and the systemd.io document have more details, but to > make a long story short, a new .notes.package section with a JSON > payload will be included in ELF objects, encoding various package- > build-time information like distro name&version, package > name&version, > etc. Is there a list of default keys (and their canonical spelling, upper- lower-Camel_Case, etc.)? If there is, could we have a "debuginfod" key with as value an URL pointing to the debuginfod server URL where the embedded build-id executable, debuginfo and sources can be found? https://sourceware.org/elfutils/Debuginfod.html > To summarize from the discussion, the main reasons why we believe this > is useful are as following: > > 1) minimal containers: the rpm database is not installed in the > containers. The information about build-ids needs to be stored > externally, so package name information is not available immediately, > but only after offline processing. The new note doesn't depend on the > rpm db in any way. > > 2) handling of a core from a container, where the container and host > have different distros > > 3) self-built and external packages: unless a lot of care is taken to > keep access to the debuginfo packages, this information may be lost. > The new note is available even if the repository metadata gets lost. > Users can easily provide equivalent information in a format that makes > sense in their own environment. It should work even when rpms and debs > and other formats are mixed, e.g. during container image creation. > > Other than in Fedora, we are already making the required code changes > at Microsoft to use the same format&specification for internally-built > binaries, and for tools that parse core files and logs. > > Tools for RPM and DEB (debhelper) integration are also available [3]. > > > -- > > Kind regards, > > Luca Boccassi > > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
