From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9793A76422 for ; Thu, 6 May 2021 09:48:12 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org CC9793A76422 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pmatilai@redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1620294492; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=hrXyOxdpfR8GWKKianot/BMBTLqkBdZWxlvHMbKQXNA=; b=baXKfM0arASq77kuQdps9ImUPxGC0zsOR8kY8g91b5hdwhg5MKVQCQCqxNEXJxMiHHFpsT BaK+DCyIUu6U+/Kz8CbVovTlIAD9joSWC7Zgb4P2/H3Wst0FuFZO1F1EvNPUuJ4Isp4BRS pfIN+g/3IP9D2kAAGI/o8qJOtUxhO3E= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-132-j5_Xpu42NmeN9FFkGpa08Q-1; Thu, 06 May 2021 05:48:09 -0400 X-MC-Unique: j5_Xpu42NmeN9FFkGpa08Q-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C18A1006CB1 for ; Thu, 6 May 2021 09:48:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.112.221] (ovpn-112-221.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.221]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15567190E8 for ; Thu, 6 May 2021 09:48:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Some package review feedback (bindir vs libexecdir, docs and find-debuginfo.sh naming) To: debugedit@sourceware.org References: From: Panu Matilainen Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 12:48:07 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=pmatilai@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: debugedit@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: debugedit development mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 09:48:14 -0000 Sorry I missed this initially, been rather hectic times for me... On 4/30/21 3:33 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi, > > Even though we aren't yet at debugedit 1.0 I did request a package > review for debugedit in Fedora to see what other issues would pop up. > > You can find the review here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953633 > > There are two issues I think should really be resolved upstream and not > be specific to how Fedora happens to do things. > > First there is the question whether to name find-debuginfo.sh without > the .sh extension. So the script would be named "find-debuginfo". This > is also https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27640 > > I don't mind renaming the script to find-debuginfo, but then it > wouldn't be a drop-in replacement anymore for rpm. Is that an issue? > > The second issue was whether to install the executables under > /usr/libexec/debugedit (or under /usr/lib/debugedit) instead of in the > normal bindir. The rational given for that was that there is no > documentation and because "normal users" would not use the executables > directly (they might only be called by other programs (which is what > libexec is for). As I've said before, I personally wouldn't put this stuff into bindir, but then I'm not running this project :) find-debuginfo.sh is the only thing rpm directly uses and there's exactly one place calling it, settable from a macro, so the exact path and naming doesn't matter a whole lot. However there seem to be quite some specs referring /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh directly, so I think we'll need to preserve /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh path by planting a symlink to the real thing there (or a wrapper script if necessary). Not a big deal, I'll handle this from rpm. > > To fix the documentation issue I submitted patches to make sure > everything has at least a man page. I think these programs might be > used as is by normal users. Although find-debuginfo.sh needs to stop > depending on RPM_environment variables. So IMHO bindir is the more > natural place to install them. If you prefer bindir then by all means go with it. - Panu - > For a 1.0 release we should make sure the documentation patches are > there. And fix the RPM_environment variables issue: > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27637 > > Please let me know what you think of the above issues and whether there > are any other issues that you think should be resolved before we do a > 1.0 release. > > Thanks, > > Mark >