Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-buildservice (266 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-buildservice] debuginfo package creation
  • From: "Cristian Morales Vega" <cmorve69@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 12:49:44 +0100
  • Message-id: <8235e6f40811090349j24193c69kb496d334633c5195@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
2008/11/9 Adrian Schröter <adrian@xxxxxxx>:
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

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.
< Previous Next >