On 05/05/2015 08:40 AM, Ralph Lange wrote:
> On 05/05/2015 13:26, Michael Davidsaver wrote:
>> On 05/05/2015 03:43 AM, Ralph Lange wrote:
>>> The RPM check assumes the standard scenario where the 'build' target
>>> builds and the 'install' target installs. So you can safely have the
>>> debug information in the libraries contain the build location path,
>>> because the install moves it to a different location - and that new
>>> location is what the check-buildroot checks against.
>> Is this check really being done before debug symbols are (or would be)
>> stripped? As I think about this, I would expect that this situation
>> would be handled by checking after the creation of a *-debuginfo .rpm
>> (using the ELF .gnu_debuglink extension).
>
> The check is being done after stripping. But:
> Only the shared libraries are stripped.
> The test fails for the static library and the debuginfo parts. The
> shared library passes.
> (This sounds silly. I know. Don't ask me.)
I agree, this sounds like a naive design.
Not sure what the the current incarnation looks like, but this old
version of check-buildroot can be bypassed by setting an environment
variable (QA_SKIP_BUILD_ROOT).
http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel/att-0747/check-buildroot
- References:
- Weird behavior when linking libgdd Ralph Lange
- Re: Weird behavior when linking libgdd Andrew Johnson
- Re: Weird behavior when linking libgdd Ralph Lange
- Re: Weird behavior when linking libgdd Michael Davidsaver
- Re: Weird behavior when linking libgdd Ralph Lange
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: Weird behavior when linking libgdd Ralph Lange
- Next:
Re: Base R3.15.2-rc1 release Ralph Lange
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
<2015>
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: Weird behavior when linking libgdd Ralph Lange
- Next:
Re: Base R3.15.2-rc1 release Ralph Lange
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
<2015>
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|