Description of problem: debuginfo-install on a multilib system cannot find debuginfo packages for secondary architectures. Since it appears that no effort was made to make these packages available to debuginfo-install, I'm filing this bug against the distribution rather than yum-utils. If this was a conscious decision (as suggested by bug 480385 comment #0), I think it is misguided. A user who needs a secondary-architecture library to run another program may want to debug that library too. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora 12; yum-utils-1.1.26-1.fc12.noarch How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce (on x86_64): debuginfo-install wine-core-1.1.38-1.fc12.i686 Actual results: "No debuginfo packages available to install" Expected results: The debuginfo is installed.
Adding a dependency on bug 185590, since that would allow the x86_64 repo to include debuginfo for only the multilib-eligible subpackages of an i686 component.
And how exactly is #185590 -- an RFE for per-subpackage -debuginfo -- related to "... no effort was made to make thse packages available ...," Details please. The connection and "blocker" status is fascinating ...
The dependency is not hard. This bug could be fixed without bug 185590, but it would mean that the x86_64 fedora-debuginfo repo would contain the debuginfo for multilib-ineligible i686 subpackages that are not in the x86_64 fedora repo, which would be weird.
Instead of running around and cross linking every bug report that you can find with "-debuginfo", you _REALLY_ ought to just try and see whatever you wish to have happen with -debuginfo packages. It truly isn't that hard, -debuginfo packages are _EXACTLY sub-packages. And the debuginfo prodcution is done at the end-of %install. Copy whatever you want to try to %install, and append exit 0 to disable the automagic. You will have a much better sense of what is needed if you try and see. Arguing with me is quite useless, since I already know my answers and RPM flaws quite well.
(In reply to comment #4) > Instead of running around and cross linking every bug > report that you can find with "-debuginfo", You're welcome to dispute any dependency you think is wrong. > you > _REALLY_ ought to just try and see whatever you wish > to have happen with -debuginfo packages. > > It truly isn't that hard, -debuginfo packages are _EXACTLY > sub-packages. And the debuginfo prodcution is done at the end-of > %install. Copy whatever you want to try to %install, and append > exit 0 > to disable the automagic. > > You will have a much better sense of what is needed if you try and see. That's a good idea. But the way in which I am willing to contribute at this time is by writing about issues on a conceptual level. If the Fedora RPM maintainers find it unhelpful, I will stop. If you find it unhelpful, you are welcome to un-CC yourself. > Arguing with me is quite useless, since I already know my answers > and RPM flaws quite well. I'm responding to your points in an effort to convince the Fedora RPM maintainers, not you.
What makes you think that re-iterating ancient issues w -debuginfo convinces anyone? Do you really believe that there aren't fundamental reasons why, say, -debuginfo production issues are unsolved 5+ years later? But good luck convincing anyone by cross-linking bugzilla reports!
(In reply to comment #6) > Do you really believe that there aren't fundamental reasons > why, say, -debuginfo production issues are unsolved 5+ years later? I believe the only reason is that no one cared enough. And probably still no one cares enough, but that could change at any time. That's not at all unusual in F/OSS. If there is a fundamental technical obstacle to solving the issues, you could help by telling us about it.
You're welcome for the pointer to OpenSuSE per-subpackage -debuginfo packages. And I've explained the technical flaws at length already. And in fact: No one cares, largely because o fbugzilla administrivia, wading through conceptual explanations of already known flaws, that are cross-linked and resurrected and re-hashed endlessly without being fixed.
And so the bugzilla administrivia arrives, all nicely attached and depended from bugzilla data searching ... lessee ... bz #185590 was opened 2006-03-15 more than 4 years ago with nothing but opinions attached. The latest opinion is that since this bug changed state, all the other bugs should be re-opened. That's work for Yet More opinion clooction poifectly. Good job! Good luck!
Cleaning up after a careless clone of bug 528419 to RHEL.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 12 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 12. 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 '12'. 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 12'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 12 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: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 12 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2010-12-02. Fedora 12 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.
*** Bug 710196 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This message is a notice that Fedora 15 is now at end of life. Fedora has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 15. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At this time, all open bugs with a Fedora 'version' of '15' have been closed as WONTFIX. (Please note: Our normal process is to give advanced warning of this occurring, but we forgot to do that. A thousand apologies.) Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, feel free to reopen this bug and simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were unable to fix it before Fedora 15 reached 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, you are encouraged to click on "Clone This Bug" (top right of this page) and open it against that version of Fedora. 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: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping