On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 11:59 PM Masahiro Yamada < yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2018-03-30 21:40 GMT+09:00 Mark Wielaard <mjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 11:01 -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: > >> I'm still mostly looking for feedback whether > >> this would be acceptable for merging or if we should just persue a > >> --build-id-salt in binutils. > > > > Personally I would go with this approach. It seems simple and it might > > take years before a new linker option is available everywhere. > Indeed. This series is easier than --build-id-salt. > If you do not see any better solution, I can accept this. > BTW, when I read > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ParallelInstallableDebuginfo > I thought "we could reverse the symlink direction from debug file to > build-id file)" > sensible (but I understand it is not easy to change this way). > If two packages share an identical image, > one package can borrow the image from the other, > then the storage space will be saved. > So, having identical ID should be advantage, > but we actually see only disadvantage... > > To simplify things I think you could just always add the extra vdso > > .comment initialized to something like KERNELRELEASE. Which distros > > seem to update anyway to include their build number, so they wouldn't > > need to do anything special to "update the build salt". > > That's what I was thinking, too. Would that solve Fedora's problem? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
