Bug 2299813

Summary: Built `%{name}-debuginfo` and `%{name}-debugsource` have no dependencies
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo>
Component: fedora-reviewAssignee: Neal Gompa <ngompa13>
Status: NEW --- QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 42CC: admiller, igor.raits, jkadlcik, leamas.alec, mdomonko, michel, ngompa13, packaging-team-maint, pingou, pmatilai
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Sandro Bonazzola 2024-07-25 08:36:42 UTC 
Noticed during the review of  `rust-vhost-device-vsock` (bug #2299655]
The generated  `%{crate}-debuginfo` and `%{name}-debugsource` have no dependencies despite they're using directories owned by `filesystem` package, resulting in fedora-review complaining about unowned directories.

I think both generated debuginfo and debugsource rpms should require as a minimum the filesystem package.

Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 Florian Festi 2024-08-07 10:04:15 UTC 
Yes, technically they should have that dependency. But these packages are generated in the rpmbuild binary directly and we don't want to hard code any Fedora package names there. Adding a dependency to the directory directly is also frowned upon lately. The debuginfo and debugsource generation will get an overhaul in some distant future where this issues might be addressed. For now it is more realistic to just not issue an error in fedora-review.
Comment 2 Aoife Moloney 2025-02-26 13:05:34 UTC 
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 42 development cycle.
Changing version to 42.