Created attachment 360135 [details]
CRC mismatches found by dbgsyms script
Description of problem:
It seems a number of the debug symbol packages available on the repos have CRC's that don't match the embedded CRC in the actual libraries.
I noticed this when trying to examine a core dump of emacs and saw GDB complaining about a number of the debug files having bad CRCs.
As luck would have it I recently encountered a similar problem on an Ubuntu package and wrote a script to audit all the debug files on the system. You can find the script at:
I have attached the output of the script on my netbook system to show the extent of the problem.
Additionally some of the debug info has poor permissions which make it hard for userspace to use. For example:
22:21 alex@trent/i686 [~] >ls -l /usr/lib/debug/usr/sbin/glibc_post_upgrade.i686.debug
-rwx------. 1 root root 1762140 2009-08-04 12:47 /usr/lib/debug/usr/sbin/glibc_post_upgrade.i686.debug
And there is also some weird stuff install (also from glibc) in /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/ which seems to be a bunch of symlinks.
Thanks for report, but basesystem is definitely wrong component - basesystem is just empty metapackages required for dependencies. Better component might be distribution, so reassigning.
Yeah sorry about that, I was guessing at the package and didn't realise there was a distro component. It's probably a symptom of how packages are built by the backend services. Certainly some debug symbols looks as though they are OK.
Please cite a particular rpm (n-v-r.a) whose debuginfo has CRC mismatches.
See (gdb)Separate Debug Files to understand what /usr/lib/debug/.build-id is for.
The packages affected (on my system) are:
I guess there would be more if I installed more debug packages.
I checked glibc-debuginfo-common-2.10.1-5.i586 and found no mismatches.
Please cite an individual file that really has a problem.
Make sure you are not being confused by installed rpm/debuginfo mismatches. e.g. you might have glibc-common-2.10.1-5.x86_64 installed instead of or next to the .i586 package and be confused by biarch rpm behavior. Check files with rpm -qf.
You can also use "eu-unstrip -n -e foo" (or eu-readelf -n) to see the build ID and verify you are comparing foo and foo.debug that really match.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 11 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 11. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora
'version' of '11'.
Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version'
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 11's end of life.
Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 11 is end of life. If you
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it
against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this
bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version,
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.
Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes
bugs or makes them obsolete.
The process we are following is described here:
Fedora 11 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2010-06-25. Fedora 11 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.
If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.
Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
This is EOL so hopefully will stop bugging me.