From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (wildebeest.demon.nl [212.238.236.112]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E19A3857400 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 12:34:01 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 0E19A3857400 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mark@klomp.org Received: from tarox.wildebeest.org (tarox.wildebeest.org [172.31.17.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B035302BBED; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 14:33:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tarox.wildebeest.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 52207413CB92; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 14:33:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Subject: Some package review feedback (bindir vs libexecdir, docs and find-debuginfo.sh naming) From: Mark Wielaard To: debugedit@sourceware.org Cc: ngompa13@gmail.com, pmatilia@redhat.com Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 14:33:59 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-10.el7) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, 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: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 12:34:02 -0000 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=3D1953633 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=3D27640 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). 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. For a 1.0 release we should make sure the documentation patches are there. And fix the RPM_environment variables issue:=20 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D27637 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