On Saturday 28 July 2007, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "VS" == Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@xxxxxx> writes: > > VS> How about making empty debuginfo packages a build error? > > Sure. And I'm having trouble coming up with a situation where a > debuginfo containing a single file is OK, since it generally indicates > that debuginfo was extracted from an executable but no source was > found. (Common for Java packages, at least.) Yep, ditto cases where "strip -g" is invoked on the binaries before find-debuginfo.sh does its thing, or the binaries are built without -g which almost always means that $RPM_OPT_FLAGS aren't being used either and at that point useless -debuginfo is no longer necessarily the biggest problem. > Or is such a stunted > debuginfo package still considered useful? I don't think so, at least generally, but detecting it without false positives is harder than the empty debuginfo case. And the Java case is a good example of another problem - I'm not sure we'd want people to disable debuginfo packages because the tools don't support creating sane ones from them yet. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
