Summary: | sys-apps/portage: Separate program, debuginfo and source into 3 files when building binary package (like deb or rpm) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Xiami <i> |
Component: | Binary packages support | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | CONFIRMED --- | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | gentoo, gentoo, hydrapolic, mgorny, mike |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
See Also: |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=728818 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=772380 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=777624 |
||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Xiami
2017-12-01 11:02:53 UTC
There's a patch for debug tarballs with FEATURES=separatedebug here: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/third_party/portage_tool/+/815663 (In reply to Xiami from comment #0) > 6. Source package can be simply generated by `ebuild xxxxx prepare' if it's > not built earlier. Sort of, but when we currently do is use debugedit --list-file to generate a list of source and header file names that get installed to /usr/src/debug. The installsources code is here: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/tree/bin/ebuild-helpers/prepstrip According to this, debuginfo rpms also contain the source code: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo?rd=Packaging/Debuginfo https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/6/html/developer_guide/intro.debuginfo It would be very easy to do like they've done, and generate packages that have a -debuginfo suffix. It would not require any changes to our binary package repository format, since these things could be treated as regular binary packages that happen to have a package name ending with -debuginfo. We can see here how they've simply added a -debuginfo suffix to the package name, and otherwise they look like normal rpms: http://mirror.cs.princeton.edu/pub/mirrors/fedora-epel/7/x86_64/debug/Packages/a/ I've suggested that they do the same for FEATURES=separatedebug: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/third_party/portage_tool/+/815663#message-7b5233ac7673d412eb7910125fa96a51b6453889 Note that debian also uses a package name suffix, either -dbgsym or -dbg: https://wiki.debian.org/HowToGetABacktrace#Installing_the_debugging_symbols We should create a formal proposal for this, extending https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0078.html. (In reply to Zac Medico from comment #5) > We should create a formal proposal for this, extending > https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0078.html. I'm wondering if that should be a separate GLEP. GLEP 78 tries to focus on how the archive looks from inside without actually telling anything about the filename, split builds etc. |