On 1/4/21 2:27 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> A lot of the existing RPM post-processing steps detect, report, and
>> ignore errors because the generated RPM package might still be partially
>> useful.
> True, but ignoring the error in this case runs the very real risk that a
> package could install a .o/.a file with no code/symbols. That in turn
> can cause downstream FTBFS errors in other packages and all kinds of
> headaches on developer systems. Failing the build here seems much safer.
>
> Contrast to ignoring a dwz error. The resulting binary RPMs are still
> very much usable, the debuginfo packages are just larger than is
> strictly necessary.
The downside is that toolchain bugs tend to go unnoticed and aren't
fixed as a result.
Right. And I think that's been a real problem. I really
dislike
ignoring errors :(
jeff