2008/11/9 Adrian Schröter <adrian@suse.de>:

On Freitag 07 November 2008 18:36:41 Cristian Morales Vega wrote:

...

I have problems understanding the logic behind the debug(info|source) package creation on the build service. - Why would I want not to create them? - Why there is a need for a BS specific option? I can add a "%debug_package" line on a per-package basis - Why games and emulation repos don't create debug packages, making bigger packages, while mozilla repo creates them? Even funnier the case of KDE:KDE4:Factory:Desktop, where debug packages are created for 11.0 and Factory but aren't for older distro versions.

it increases the build result a lot. We do not want to create them by default, if the packager does not want them (nor bugreports) about it anyway. "increases the build result"? Do you mean more packages build successfully if there aren't debug packages??? If the packager doesn't wants debug information, shouldn't the BS automatically strip all the binaries if debug packages creation is disabled? Up to where I understand debug packages only separate the information on a new package, don't add new info. I can understand that perhaps you don't want debug info. But if you want it, doesn't always makes more sense to split it in a -debuginfo package?

The thing is that if I want to build a package for games, since debuginfo packages are disabled, I end with a rpmlint warning saying there are unstripped binaries. So what should I do to fix the warning? I could add a %debug_package line to the spec file, but the day the games repo decides to enable debug packages my package would not build anymore. I could add '-s' to LDFLAGS (not sure it will work always so easily), but if someday debug packages are enabled my -debuginfo package would be empty since debug information would be stripped before the rpm macro searchs for it.

2008/11/9 Adrian Schröter <adrian@suse.de>:

On Freitag 07 November 2008 18:36:41 Cristian Morales Vega wrote:

...

I have problems understanding the logic behind the debug(info|source) package creation on the build service. - Why would I want not to create them? - Why there is a need for a BS specific option? I can add a "%debug_package" line on a per-package basis - Why games and emulation repos don't create debug packages, making bigger packages, while mozilla repo creates them? Even funnier the case of KDE:KDE4:Factory:Desktop, where debug packages are created for 11.0 and Factory but aren't for older distro versions.

it increases the build result a lot. We do not want to create them by default, if the packager does not want them (nor bugreports) about it anyway. "increases the build result"? Do you mean more packages build successfully if there aren't debug packages??? If the packager doesn't wants debug information, shouldn't the BS automatically strip all the binaries if debug packages creation is disabled? Up to where I understand debug packages only separate the information on a new package, don't add new info. I can understand that perhaps you don't want debug info. But if you want it, doesn't always makes more sense to split it in a -debuginfo package?

The thing is that if I want to build a package for games, since debuginfo packages are disabled, I end with a rpmlint warning saying there are unstripped binaries. So what should I do to fix the warning? I could add a %debug_package line to the spec file, but the day the games repo decides to enable debug packages my package would not build anymore. I could add '-s' to LDFLAGS (not sure it will work always so easily), but if someday debug packages are enabled my -debuginfo package would be empty since debug information would be stripped before the rpm macro searchs for it.