DevHeads.net

Postings by Mark Wielaard

elfutils.spec typo broke rawhide koji builds

Hi,

I made a typo in the elfutils.spec for elfutils-0.178-3.fc32 which
broke the provide/requires dependency for elfutils-libelf. I fixed it
in elfutils-0.178-4.

debuginfod non-standard-uid and cache permissions

Hi fedora devel list,

The new elfutils upstream comes with a debuginfod server which we want
packaged (as a sub-package) for fedora. Testing looks good and
everything seems to work, but rpmlint flags a couple of issues that I
don't think should be real issues.

What to BuildRequire for libstdc++.so __cxa_demangle?

Hi,

The elfutils tools can demangle C++ symbols through the standard
_cxa_demangle interface. The elfutils tools are written in C and
so simply link with -lstdc++ to get access to __cxa_demangle.

There is a BuildRequires: libstdc++-devel in the elfutils.spec.
But it looks like that isn't enough anymore to pull in libstdc++.so
to build against.

It looks like that is provided through a symlink in gcc-c++.
Should the elfutils.spec just BuildRequires: gcc-c++ instead of
libstdc++-devel?

Split valgrind-tools-devel from valgrind-devel package

Hi,

With valgrind-3.13.0-15.fc28 the valgrind-devel package only contains
the development headers needed for building valgrind aware applications.
So it only contains the stand alone headers valgrind.h, callgrind.h,
drd.h, helgrind.h and memcheck.h that have the client request macros
that give hints to the valgrind tools.

I build various packages locally that BuildRequire valgrind-devel
to make sure they only required these headers.

valgrind-tools-devel contains all development files, headers and
static libraries, to build valgrind tools.

debuginfo/source improvements vs mass rebuild

Hi packagers,

Just before the mass rebuild some debuginfo/source improvements were
enabled by default (%_debugsource_packages and %_debuginfo_subpackages).
See <a href="https://pagure.io/releng/issue/6863" title="https://pagure.io/releng/issue/6863">https://pagure.io/releng/issue/6863</a> and
<a href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SubpackageAndSourceDebuginfo" title="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SubpackageAndSourceDebuginfo">https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SubpackageAndSourceDebuginfo</a> for
some background.

It didn't cause mass breakage, but there were some issues. Sorry about
that. The good news is that we now have fixes (or workarounds) for the
bugs found. So hopefully if your package did fail to rebuild you can
just resubmit it again or add a small tweak to get it building.

rpm debuginfo improvements for rawhide/f27

Hi packagers,

rawhide rpmbuild contains various debuginfo improvements that hopefully
will make various hacks in spec files redundant.

If you have your own way of handling debuginfo packages, calling
find-debuginfo.sh directly, need hacks for working around debugedit
limitations or split your debuginfo package by hand then please try out
rpmbuild in rawhide and read below for some macros you can set to tweak
debuginfo package generation.

If you still need hacks in your spec file because setting macros isn't
enough to get the debuginfo packages you want then please let us know.
Also please l