Bug 617166 - find-debuginfo.sh change for gdb index
Summary: find-debuginfo.sh change for gdb index
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: rpm
Version: 14
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
high
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Panu Matilainen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 631997
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-07-22 11:25 UTC by Jan Kratochvil
Modified: 2010-09-08 20:20 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version: rpm-4.8.1-5.fc14
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-08-24 01:26:03 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jan Kratochvil 2010-07-22 11:25:24 UTC
As discussed in:
Re: find-debuginfo.sh change for gdb index
http://sourceware.org/ml/archer/2010-q3/msg00022.html
for
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GdbIndex

I would just prefer line
+  [ -x /usr/bin/gdb-add-index ] && /usr/bin/gdb-add-index "$f"

that is would the /dev/null redirects, normally GDB does not produce any message anyway.

+ /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id gdb-7.1.90.20100721
extracting debug info from BUILDROOT/gdb-7.1.90.20100721-4.fc14.x86_64/usr/bin/gdb
extracting debug info from BUILDROOT/gdb-7.1.90.20100721-4.fc14.x86_64/usr/bin/gdbserver
extracting debug info from BUILDROOT/gdb-7.1.90.20100721-4.fc14.x86_64/usr/lib64/libinproctrace.so
symlinked /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/gdb.debug to /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/gdbtui.debug
33736 blocks
+ /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot

Comment 1 Jan Kratochvil 2010-07-22 11:29:23 UTC
/usr/bin/gdb-add-index
is now present in gdb-7.1.90.20100721-5.fc14.

Comment 2 Jan Kratochvil 2010-07-27 15:33:10 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> I would just prefer line
> +  [ -x /usr/bin/gdb-add-index ] && /usr/bin/gdb-add-index "$f"
> 
> that is WITHOUT the /dev/null redirects, normally GDB does not produce any
> message anyway.
[typo fix]

pinged in the list:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/139622.html

Comment 3 John Poelstra 2010-07-27 16:45:57 UTC
Proposing F14 Alpha Blocker as this is needed for feature completion.

Comment 4 Adam Williamson 2010-07-29 03:52:47 UTC
This has come up before, and we don't consider incomplete features to be blockers. The feature process is separate from the release validation process. The fallback for a broken / incomplete feature, according to the process, is not to delay or block a release, but to go with the contingency/fallback plan for that feature.



-- 
Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers

Comment 5 John Poelstra 2010-07-29 17:09:19 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> This has come up before, and we don't consider incomplete features to be
> blockers. The feature process is separate from the release validation process.
> The fallback for a broken / incomplete feature, according to the process, is
> not to delay or block a release, but to go with the contingency/fallback plan
> for that feature.
> 

Fair enough.  Removed F14Blocker.

Comment 6 Bug Zapper 2010-07-30 12:44:23 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 14 development cycle.
Changing version to '14'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 7 Panu Matilainen 2010-08-09 12:35:15 UTC
The one-liner version of the patch is in upstream rpm now. Should this still go to F14 or just rawhide? F14 is unlikely to get any mass-rebuilds at this stage so the benefit of the gdb index creation would be limited there.

Comment 8 Jan Kratochvil 2010-08-09 12:47:29 UTC
As it is an approved F14 feature, it is a Bug filed for F14 and the GDB-side implementation went in F14 it should go for F14.

As the GDB startup performance problem is visible only on the several largest applications (OOo, Firefox etc.) these highly exposed packages usually get rebuilt even multiple times still before GA and then many times for updates.

This Bug is not MODIFIED as it is not present in rpm/f14 Fedora packages GIT.
It is neither RAWHIDE as it is not present even in rpm/master.
It could be UPSTREAM but I was requesting this feature for F-14, not upstream.
Thanks.

Comment 9 Panu Matilainen 2010-08-09 12:55:48 UTC
Okay, will do.

Oh and FYI on the bug status: I have this habbit o (ab)using the MODIFIED status to flag "fixed upstream, pending Fedora update" status for my own reference.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2010-08-10 08:37:55 UTC
rpm-4.8.1-5.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpm-4.8.1-5.fc14

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2010-08-11 02:56:05 UTC
rpm-4.8.1-5.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update rpm'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpm-4.8.1-5.fc14

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2010-08-24 01:25:58 UTC
rpm-4.8.1-5.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.