New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
debuginfo generation does not work with --build-in-place #3042
Comments
AFAIK for |
--build-in-place is a hack that doesn't fit well into rpm's view of the world, I doubt debuginfo is the only thing that doesn't work with that. Thanks for the report though. |
@pmatilai Is there by any chance a better way than |
Actually, this is probably not the right tracker for this bug. |
That %install definition is a bug in its own right: #2204 - yes, this is an upstream issue. As for build-in-place alternatives, not really, the very concept of building from whatever happens to be around is alien to rpm's design of pristine sources. |
@pmatilai We're using it as part of systemd's development workflow these days. Being able to incrementally build rpms from a locally checked out tree of the upstream repository allows us to incorporate package building in the development workflow itself. I can build an image with newly packaged systemd rpms from the latest upstream sources and boot it in a virtual machine in about 30s thanks to It also makes debugging production issues a joy because I can make a source code change, get new rpms in 30s, install them, get more feedback, and do the same thing. This would also be a lot harder without (This does not take away that any proper rpm build intended to be distributed widely should always be done from pristine sources) This is just some feedback on how this option makes my life a lot easier, so I'm hoping it won't get removed at some point because it conflicts with rpm's design. |
I totally get the testing use-case, we have -bb --short-circuit for similar reasons. Only with --short-circuit we "poison" the produced packages to prevent people from distributing them (accidentally or otherwise). Anyway, I agree there seems to be a bug - or more likely a few - in there. There are currently zero tests for --build-in-place, it basically just jumps off the cliff and hopes for the best. I'm more surprised it works at all as it is. |
It's not the prettiest thing in the world but if you're interested in how we use --build-in-place, the build script that builds the development rpms in systemd can be found here |
It is a misfeature. It means that the produced packages cannot be compared and tested properly. In particular, The whole idea of "prevent people from distributing them" doesn't make much sense. You cannot build a package with Instead of using Please drop this whole protection and let people use |
Describe the bug
The %install to make debuginfo work is currently defined as follows on Fedora:
The
--build-in-place
documentation says:Something in the interaction between these two causes debuginfo to not get generated when
--build-in-place
is used, presumably becausebuildsubdir
is not defined when--build-in-place
is used.To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
--build-in-place
Please link or attach the packages or spec files involved.
Expected behavior
Debuginfo packages are generated
Environment
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: