Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-buildservice (349 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-buildservice] Stripping debug info into a separate rpm?
  • From: Ben Martin <monkeyiq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:56:07 +1000
  • Message-id: <1196182567.13279.66.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 13:24 +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 11:27:45 Ben Martin wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 10:43 +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
On Sunday 25 November 2007 19:05:51 Ben Martin wrote:
This seems to work for F7,F8 and opensuse 10.3.

I already had at the top of the specfile;
%define name foo

Not needed.

I had that in there already because the %{name} is used many times in
the header of the package

Still not needed. Name: foo defines the %name macro for you.

Ah... one of those moments when I realize that I need to RE-RTFM. Thanks
for pointing this out to me.



On Fedora 8:
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/lib/debug/.build-id/21/fa83c1714247ffac3294880f6aa9c1f9a20636
/usr/lib/debug/.build-id/21/fa83c1714247ffac3294880f6aa9c1f9a20636.debug
/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libfuselagefs.so.0.0.0.debug
/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libfuselagefs.so.0.debug
/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libfuselagefs.so.debug
/usr/src/debug/fuselagefs-0.0.1/src/fuselagefs.cpp
/usr/src/debug/fuselagefs-0.0.1/src/fuselagefs.hh

On opensuse 10.3:
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libfuselagefs.so.0.0.0.debug

With the nastier brute force method I was using it would package on both
platforms.
package = ~/fuselagefs

Is this home:monkeyiq/fuselagefs? I'm not sure if it's the cause of the
problem, but I see you "commented" out some macros in the spec. Unfortunately
the way rpm parses specfiles is that it first evaluates macros and then
strips comments. So your
#%debug_package fuselagefs-debuginfo
line will results in an expansion of the %debug_package macro with the first
line commented out.

hth,
Michal

Yep, thats the fuselagefs. You were correct, stripping out all of the
debug comments and just putting the one solo
%debug_package
after the description works like a charm.

Thanks for highlighting this little somewhat unintuitive trap of rpm
spec files.
< Previous Next >