Rawhide kernel debuginfo size more than doubled!

[Jarod Wilson]

On Monday 31 March 2008 05:39:47 pm Roland McGrath wrote:
> > On Monday 31 March 2008 03:45:25 pm Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > I had a fix for this test-building when I went to watch some schlock TV
> > > last night and forgot to check on it and commit before I went to bed.
> > >
> > > This was my .spec diff.  The regexp has three chars different from your
> > > version.
> > >
> > > +%{expand:%%global debuginfo_args %{?debuginfo_args} -p
> > > '/.*/%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.?%{1}}?/.*|/.*%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.%{1}}(\.debug)?'
> > > -o debuginfo%{?1}.list}\ ^
> >
> > Gah. Now, in your email, the ^ pointed to the ? in debuginfo%{?1}.list,
> > while when quoted (and rewrapped by kmail), it pointed at the ?
> > in %%{KVERREL}%{?1:.?%{1}}... And I'm not 100% certain which one you were
> > actually questioning now.
>
> In fact, it pointed at the last (third) ? in
>
> 	%%{KVERREL}%{?1:.?%{1}}?/.*
>
> The two that you thought I might have been referring to are both correct.
>
> > From a later reply, looks like actually the one in debuginfo%{?1}.list,
> > which is necessary, so that for the base kernel, we get debuginfo.list.
> > At least, I think that's the case, no?
>
> That ? is an rpm macro syntax ? and none of those should change.
>
> > So I *think* this would do now:
> >
> > %{expand:%%global debuginfo_args %{?debuginfo_args} -p
> > '/.*/%%{KVERREL}%{?1:\.%{1}}/.*|/.*%%{KVERREL}%{?1:\.%{1}}(\.debug)?' -o
> > debuginfo%{?1}.list}\
>
> Note, I unwrapped the line from your message.  If you don't use an MUA that
> lets you be positive what the actual bytes in the message were, let alone
> send the actual bytes you intended, we are not going to be able to discuss
> this in email.

Gah. kmail sometimes does interesting things, and I failed to compensate... Now I see how I hit 
both my mistakes. Stupidly, kmail's 'view source' option doesn't use a fixed width font by default, 
and I've had it set to hard-wrap at 78 chars. I think both of those can be remedied...

> The line quoted above is only one char different from my version.
> You have removed the ? that did not belong (right before /.* as I cited
> above).
>
> You also removed another one that I did not remove.  That one permitted
> either %{KVERREL}.flavor or %{KVERREL}flavor to match.  I think that one is
> indeed no longer needed.  It was originally -? rather than \.? and was to
> match /lib/modules/RELflavor as well as /usr/src/kernels/REL-flavor
> when that was how they looked.
>
> So, I think the line quoted above is now correct.

Committed, thanks for bearing with me. :)

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jwilson at redhat.com