Default image target size [Was:Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2012-06-18)]

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Jun 26 18:50:14 UTC 2012


On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 01:15:14AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> 
> > Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> How would you suggest we implement this? rm -rf the stuff in %post?
> >> (Yuck!!!) As I understand it, the symbols will be bloating the main
> >> packages and not be in subpackages. (Debuginfo subpackages are what we
> >> have now.)
> > 
> > It would be nice if the minidebuginfo data was stored similar to
> > debuginfo data. That way spins could easily rm -rf the minidebuginfo
> > folder to keep images smaller.
> 
> You apparently didn't get it: running rm -rf on files owned by a package on 
> the spin is NOT a serious option! Among other things, it will break 
> DeltaRPMs and rpm -Va, it does not persist on package updates and thus 
> creates inconsistencies when (inevitably) some packages are updated and 
> others are not, and it's just wrong.
> 
A pie in the sky option might be to have minidebuginfo/debuginfo reside
in the same package as the binaries it belongs to but in separate files
which are marked in the rpm filelist.  Then rpm could have a --nodebuginfo
similar to how it has --nodoc now.  Not sure if that's either (1) something
the rpm team would go for or (2) something that could be available in a time
frame that the minidebuginfo authors would find acceptable.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120626/ddeb0905/attachment.sig>


More information about the devel mailing list