[Fedora-packaging] Re: kmdl proposal and kmod flaws

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Thu Aug 10 01:07:40 UTC 2006

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 01:25:08PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Ville Skyttä wrote:
> >On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 18:34 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> >
> >>Until now I'm fighting the uname-r-in-name and one-specfile battles, I
> >>really don't want to distract people from these issues until they are
> >>done with.
> >
> >debuginfos are intimately part of that "battle".  It's not a
> >distraction, it's required information.

OK, if you feel that way I'm attaching the requested details below. I
hope that this thread doesn't stall into some implementation detail

It's rather trivial and really doesn't deserve the attention it
receives, but at least I hope that it makes clear that all
implementation details have been carefully thought of already or
matured in the last three years.

So, do you buy it now? :)

> >>To answer your question on debuginfos: You simply change the name of
> >>the debuginfo package
> >
> >In the specfile?  How?  Examples?

No, remember that the kmdl scheme is a clean and KISS interface/
implementation design. Furthermore debuginfos are hidden as an
implementation detail in conventional packages, too. So starting to
add such information to the specfile or the kmdl interface part would
be wrong or a hack. It belongs to the implementation part, aka macro

> >Surely you're not suggesting to just rename the actual debuginfo
> >rpm file on disk after it has been built and be happy?
> I think he is, and stop calling him Surely. (:

Surely is my middle name, but I prefer Axel ;)

In fact renaming after the fact would be dirty and would leave traces
in the resulting debuginfo package (the internal rpm name would still
be the one before renaming). I prefer modding the macros. It's a
simple change, but since I don't want to touch the upstream macros
(well, I do want to, but rather in the source itself ;), I override
the macro with a local copy. No, let's not get distracted about what I
have in mind about future redhat-rpm-config contents ...

In order to avoid any further inquiries on this rather trivial issue I
even diffed the original macro to the one I use to reveal all the
magic at once (note again: the macro is overridden, not replaced in
the original definition, this is a convenience diff).

%kmdl_userland is always 1 unless the package to be built is a kernel
specific kernel module (the default for %kmdl_userland is an
implementation detail, for FE's buildsystem it would probably be the
other way around). So project foo ends up with debuginfos naturally
named as


| +## Note^2: A modified copy to reflect different debuginfo packages
for kmdls
| +%debuginfoname %(test "%{kmdl_userland}" = 1 && echo debuginfo ||
echo "-n %{kmdl_name}-debuginfo")
|  #      Template for debug information sub-package.
|  # NOTE: This is a copy from rpm to get the ifnarch noarch fix, it
can be removed later
|  %debug_package \
|  %ifnarch noarch\
|  %global __debug_package 1\
| -%package debuginfo \
| +%package %{debuginfoname} \
|  Summary: Debug information for package %{name}\
|  Group: Development/Debug\
| -%description debuginfo\
| +%description %{debuginfoname}\
|  This package provides debug information for package %{name}.\
|  Debug information is useful when developing applications that use
|  package or when debugging this package.\
| -%files debuginfo -f debugfiles.list\
| +%files %{debuginfoname} -f debugfiles.list\
|  %defattr(-,root,root)\
|  %endif\
|  %{nil}

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20060810/c1b60d59/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list