Opened 4 years ago

Closed 2 years ago

#159 closed enhancement (no change needed)

Standardize debug package creation, part 3

Reported by: dmik Owned by:
Priority: Feedback Pending Milestone:
Component: rpm Version:
Severity: low Keywords:


This is a continuation of #149. The remaining question is whether we should provide separate -dbgsym sub-sub-packages for each package and sub-package in .spec rather than a single -debug sub-package, like now.

Change History (6)

comment:1 Changed 4 years ago by diver

as the debug packages are seldom used/needed, I guess a single package is enough.

comment:2 Changed 4 years ago by ydario

I agree, one package is enough and easier to remove.

comment:3 Changed 4 years ago by dmik

Yes, but as I write here

Now I have one more argument for going the second way (a separate dbgsym sub-sub-package for each sub-package). Imagine a situation when there are two separate sub-packages both providing the same binary, say, sh.exe. If there is a single debug package for both of them then there will be obviously no way to provide debug info for both binaries.

This situation is perhaps not very likely, but it's still theoretically possible.

comment:4 Changed 4 years ago by diver

I would not go that route, as it will make it even harder for ppl using a debug package to know which one is the right one. And for non exeptq enabled stuff, which most is right now, the debug package is useless anyway. But that's another topic.
And when we really get to a situation where we need sub debug packages those could be done by hand imho.
So I still vote to stick with what we have now.

comment:5 Changed 3 years ago by diver

  • Priority changed from major to Feedback Pending
  • Type changed from defect to enhancement

imho we could close this ticket, as what we have right now is more than enough.

comment:6 Changed 2 years ago by diver

  • Resolution set to no change needed
  • Status changed from new to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.