Hi,
Updating my rawhide box, I found:
kernel-debuginfo i686 2.6.25-0.172.rc7.git4.fc9 rawhide-debuginfo 47 k kernel-debuginfo-common i686 2.6.25-0.172.rc7.git4.fc9 rawhide-debuginfo 486 M
- Did anything in the F9 builds change that lead to this more than two-fold increase in the debuginfo size? - Or is it that the "common" rpm needs updation once every kernel release with just "updates" for every update to the same release thereafter?
Ananth
On Monday 31 March 2008 03:00:00 am Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
Hi,
Updating my rawhide box, I found:
kernel-debuginfo i686 2.6.25-0.172.rc7.git4.fc9 rawhide-debuginfo 47 k kernel-debuginfo-common i686 2.6.25-0.172.rc7.git4.fc9 rawhide-debuginfo 486 M
- Did anything in the F9 builds change that lead to this more than
two-fold increase in the debuginfo size?
- Or is it that the "common" rpm needs updation once every kernel
release with just "updates" for every update to the same release thereafter?
There's a problem with some of the changes I made to add arch to our uname -r output screwing with debuginfo a bit. The size isn't double though.
Before ------ kernel-debuginfo: ~198M kernel-debuginfo-common: ~32M
Now --- kernel-debuginfo: 47k kernel-debuginfo-common: 230M
So same size overall, I just haven't got all the bits getting into the right sub-packages. Working on fixing that now.
On Monday 31 March 2008 01:17:59 pm Jarod Wilson wrote:
On Monday 31 March 2008 03:00:00 am Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
Hi,
Updating my rawhide box, I found:
kernel-debuginfo i686 2.6.25-0.172.rc7.git4.fc9 rawhide-debuginfo 47 k kernel-debuginfo-common i686 2.6.25-0.172.rc7.git4.fc9 rawhide-debuginfo 486 M
- Did anything in the F9 builds change that lead to this more than
two-fold increase in the debuginfo size?
- Or is it that the "common" rpm needs updation once every kernel
release with just "updates" for every update to the same release thereafter?
There's a problem with some of the changes I made to add arch to our uname -r output screwing with debuginfo a bit. The size isn't double though.
Before
kernel-debuginfo: ~198M kernel-debuginfo-common: ~32M
Now
kernel-debuginfo: 47k kernel-debuginfo-common: 230M
So same size overall, I just haven't got all the bits getting into the right sub-packages. Working on fixing that now.
Got a fix committed to kernel-2.6.25-0.178.rc7.git6.fc9.
This gets us back to: 199M kernel-debuginfo.x86_64: 199M kernel-debuginfo-common.x86_64: 31M
I had a fix for this test-building when I went to watch some schlock TV last night and forgot to check on it and commit before I went to bed.
This was my .spec diff. The regexp has three chars different from your version.
+%{expand:%%global debuginfo_args %{?debuginfo_args} -p '/.*/%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.?%{1}}?/.*|/.*%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.%{1}}(.debug)?' -o debuginfo%{?1}.list}\ ^
what's that ? for? The other differences are . instead of . for matching literal . in two places.
--- kernel.spec 30 Mar 2008 22:48:29 -0700 1.560 +++ kernel.spec 30 Mar 2008 22:59:22 -0700 @@ -712,7 +712,7 @@ AutoReqProv: no\ %description -n %{name}%{?1:-%{1}}-debuginfo\ This package provides debug information for package %{name}%{?1:-%{1}}.\ This is required to use SystemTap with %{name}%{?1:-%{1}}-%{KVERREL}.\ -%{expand:%%global debuginfo_args %{?debuginfo_args} -p '/.*/%%{version}-%%{release}%{?1:-?%{1}}(-%%{_target_cpu})?/.*|/.*%%{version}-%%{release}%{?1}(.debug)?' -o debuginfo%{?1}.list}\ +%{expand:%%global debuginfo_args %{?debuginfo_args} -p '/.*/%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.?%{1}}/.*|/.*%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.%{1}}(.debug)?' -o debuginfo%{?1}.list}\ %{nil}
# @@ -1246,7 +1246,7 @@ BuildKernel() { CopyKernel=cp fi
- KernelVer=%{version}-%{release}.%{_target_cpu}${Flavour:+.${Flavour}} + KernelVer=%{KVERREL}${Flavour:+.${Flavour}} echo BUILDING A KERNEL FOR ${Flavour} %{_target_cpu}...
# make sure EXTRAVERSION says what we want it to say
On Monday 31 March 2008 03:45:25 pm Roland McGrath wrote:
I had a fix for this test-building when I went to watch some schlock TV last night and forgot to check on it and commit before I went to bed.
This was my .spec diff. The regexp has three chars different from your version.
+%{expand:%%global debuginfo_args %{?debuginfo_args} -p '/.*/%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.?%{1}}?/.*|/.*%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.%{1}}(.debug)?' -o debuginfo%{?1}.list}\ ^
what's that ? for?
I wondered that myself, but it was already there... Might have been a typo I inserted earlier. Yanking it works for me.
The other differences are . instead of . for matching literal . in two places.
Ah, that's even better. Forgot this is essentially regex passed down to find-debuginfo.sh... I'll drop the ? and add the 's.
I wondered that myself, but it was already there... Might have been a typo I inserted earlier. Yanking it works for me.
In the old regexp there was (-%%{_target_cpu})? there. That ? applied to the whole () group. (That was so it would match both /lib/modules/REL/blah and /usr/src/kernels/REL-ARCH/blah.)
On Monday 31 March 2008 03:45:25 pm Roland McGrath wrote:
I had a fix for this test-building when I went to watch some schlock TV last night and forgot to check on it and commit before I went to bed.
This was my .spec diff. The regexp has three chars different from your version.
+%{expand:%%global debuginfo_args %{?debuginfo_args} -p '/.*/%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.?%{1}}?/.*|/.*%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.%{1}}(.debug)?' -o debuginfo%{?1}.list}\ ^
Gah. Now, in your email, the ^ pointed to the ? in debuginfo%{?1}.list, while when quoted (and rewrapped by kmail), it pointed at the ? in %%{KVERREL}%{?1:.?%{1}}... And I'm not 100% certain which one you were actually questioning now.
From a later reply, looks like actually the one in debuginfo%{?1}.list, which
is necessary, so that for the base kernel, we get debuginfo.list. At least, I think that's the case, no?
So I *think* this would do now:
%{expand:%%global debuginfo_args %{?debuginfo_args} -p '/.*/%%{KVERREL}%{?1:. %{1}}/.*|/.*%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.%{1}}(.debug)?' -o debuginfo%{?1}.list}\
Since we have the arch in all the paths as part of KVERREL, no need to worry about paths with or without %{_target_cpu} in 'em.
On Monday 31 March 2008 03:45:25 pm Roland McGrath wrote:
I had a fix for this test-building when I went to watch some schlock TV last night and forgot to check on it and commit before I went to bed.
This was my .spec diff. The regexp has three chars different from your version.
+%{expand:%%global debuginfo_args %{?debuginfo_args} -p '/.*/%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.?%{1}}?/.*|/.*%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.%{1}}(.debug)?' -o debuginfo%{?1}.list}\ ^
Gah. Now, in your email, the ^ pointed to the ? in debuginfo%{?1}.list, while when quoted (and rewrapped by kmail), it pointed at the ? in %%{KVERREL}%{?1:.?%{1}}... And I'm not 100% certain which one you were actually questioning now.
In fact, it pointed at the last (third) ? in
%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.?%{1}}?/.*
The two that you thought I might have been referring to are both correct.
From a later reply, looks like actually the one in debuginfo%{?1}.list, which is necessary, so that for the base kernel, we get debuginfo.list. At least, I think that's the case, no?
That ? is an rpm macro syntax ? and none of those should change.
So I *think* this would do now:
%{expand:%%global debuginfo_args %{?debuginfo_args} -p '/.*/%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.%{1}}/.*|/.*%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.%{1}}(.debug)?' -o debuginfo%{?1}.list}\
Note, I unwrapped the line from your message. If you don't use an MUA that lets you be positive what the actual bytes in the message were, let alone send the actual bytes you intended, we are not going to be able to discuss this in email.
The line quoted above is only one char different from my version. You have removed the ? that did not belong (right before /.* as I cited above).
You also removed another one that I did not remove. That one permitted either %{KVERREL}.flavor or %{KVERREL}flavor to match. I think that one is indeed no longer needed. It was originally -? rather than .? and was to match /lib/modules/RELflavor as well as /usr/src/kernels/REL-flavor when that was how they looked.
So, I think the line quoted above is now correct.
Thanks, Roland
On Monday 31 March 2008 05:39:47 pm Roland McGrath wrote:
On Monday 31 March 2008 03:45:25 pm Roland McGrath wrote:
I had a fix for this test-building when I went to watch some schlock TV last night and forgot to check on it and commit before I went to bed.
This was my .spec diff. The regexp has three chars different from your version.
+%{expand:%%global debuginfo_args %{?debuginfo_args} -p '/.*/%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.?%{1}}?/.*|/.*%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.%{1}}(.debug)?' -o debuginfo%{?1}.list}\ ^
Gah. Now, in your email, the ^ pointed to the ? in debuginfo%{?1}.list, while when quoted (and rewrapped by kmail), it pointed at the ? in %%{KVERREL}%{?1:.?%{1}}... And I'm not 100% certain which one you were actually questioning now.
In fact, it pointed at the last (third) ? in
%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.?%{1}}?/.*
The two that you thought I might have been referring to are both correct.
From a later reply, looks like actually the one in debuginfo%{?1}.list, which is necessary, so that for the base kernel, we get debuginfo.list. At least, I think that's the case, no?
That ? is an rpm macro syntax ? and none of those should change.
So I *think* this would do now:
%{expand:%%global debuginfo_args %{?debuginfo_args} -p '/.*/%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.%{1}}/.*|/.*%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.%{1}}(.debug)?' -o debuginfo%{?1}.list}\
Note, I unwrapped the line from your message. If you don't use an MUA that lets you be positive what the actual bytes in the message were, let alone send the actual bytes you intended, we are not going to be able to discuss this in email.
Gah. kmail sometimes does interesting things, and I failed to compensate... Now I see how I hit both my mistakes. Stupidly, kmail's 'view source' option doesn't use a fixed width font by default, and I've had it set to hard-wrap at 78 chars. I think both of those can be remedied...
The line quoted above is only one char different from my version. You have removed the ? that did not belong (right before /.* as I cited above).
You also removed another one that I did not remove. That one permitted either %{KVERREL}.flavor or %{KVERREL}flavor to match. I think that one is indeed no longer needed. It was originally -? rather than .? and was to match /lib/modules/RELflavor as well as /usr/src/kernels/REL-flavor when that was how they looked.
So, I think the line quoted above is now correct.
Committed, thanks for bearing with me. :)
kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli -
Jarod Wilson -
Roland McGrath