On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 11:18:40AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 10:07:33AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 03:55:33PM +0100, Frédéric Pierret wrote:
> > >be doing it all the time. It's a perfectly good situation to _not_
> > That was my original remark that pulling a "big" RPM for just one
> > not optimal. But as you said, it will probably concern very few amount of
> > users. So inserting a buildinfo file into debuginfo RPM is a good start.
> > Also, nothing is written in the stone? If needed in a future, we could
> > change that.
> Yeah, exactly — we can optimize later.
Sounds like a nice idea, but we only make debuginfo packages for
packages that have debug symbols to strip out.
Where would we put it for all the packages that don't have debuginfo now?
Just make one? Thats could be a bit confusing. (why does this noarch
script have a debuginfo file)?
Ah, good point.
I think it might be better to do a new buildinfo subpackage, but
never distribute it (for now it just exists in koji/local builds). Then,
once it someday becomes of use we could start shipping it somehow.
I think the -buildinfo (would that name be ok?) subpackage can be
included in the -source repository (if that's compatible with different
packages for different archs). Alternatively, -debuginfo repo, but that
But all this is getting a bit ahead. Someone needs to come up with
contents and tools to make/read/do cool things with them first. :)
There is one in progress already:
Invisible Things Lab