[Rpm-maint] Drowning in build-ids

Igor Gnatenko ignatenkobrain at fedoraproject.org
Wed Oct 25 10:49:15 UTC 2017


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 13:46 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> I've only now begun to encounter packages with the build-id links in
> the 
> packages themselves. In a package with just a couple of binaries
> it's 
> seemed like non-issue, but yesterday I happened to encounter this:
> 
> [pmatilai at sopuli x86_64]$ rpm -qpl can-utils-20170830git-
> 1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
> /usr/bin/asc2log
> /usr/bin/bcmserver
> /usr/bin/can-calc-bit-timing
> /usr/bin/canbusload
> /usr/bin/candump
> /usr/bin/canfdtest
> /usr/bin/cangen
> /usr/bin/cangw
> /usr/bin/canlogserver
> /usr/bin/canplayer
> /usr/bin/cansend
> /usr/bin/cansniffer
> /usr/bin/isotpdump
> /usr/bin/isotpperf
> /usr/bin/isotprecv
> /usr/bin/isotpsend
> /usr/bin/isotpserver
> /usr/bin/isotpsniffer
> /usr/bin/isotptun
> /usr/bin/log2asc
> /usr/bin/log2long
> /usr/bin/slcan_attach
> /usr/bin/slcand
> /usr/bin/slcanpty
> /usr/lib/.build-id
> /usr/lib/.build-id/05
> /usr/lib/.build-id/05/c6e0445041bc297383997257bb625809ba62cb
> /usr/lib/.build-id/0a
> /usr/lib/.build-id/0a/60db326d39a38847a3f6c6bb67213434399c42
> /usr/lib/.build-id/0a/7395e63809014439634b0f1c311b40a05fb5e5
> /usr/lib/.build-id/1a
> /usr/lib/.build-id/1a/cd09a44512470d5376a5abee7438005b3de0a2
> /usr/lib/.build-id/24
> /usr/lib/.build-id/24/c4eb684e21826207dc1d71bc023cdef7b5ee88
> /usr/lib/.build-id/3a
> /usr/lib/.build-id/3a/2309e9e68c2e3cdf475734b7eb4f426f109926
> /usr/lib/.build-id/3f
> /usr/lib/.build-id/3f/cd554bc60888e7feb4fb3d4cb891c549361aed
> /usr/lib/.build-id/59
> /usr/lib/.build-id/59/c1638a4c15139492927c117d44cc6f84532464
> /usr/lib/.build-id/5b
> /usr/lib/.build-id/5b/c0f8af0212d1e94f8a5c962b719dbe3f4dcc50
> /usr/lib/.build-id/6a
> /usr/lib/.build-id/6a/187c01913bc9b861dcb95ac0c5a12865fdd93b
> /usr/lib/.build-id/6a/47c3475fbe4303a8a8005353f11f719112f838
> /usr/lib/.build-id/71
> /usr/lib/.build-id/71/f3b492130fa6ae09354107a8d7821d2969a4d9
> /usr/lib/.build-id/75
> /usr/lib/.build-id/75/a05d7dd3d81d9f7c0eef1ebde082cc1a5c93d9
> /usr/lib/.build-id/7d
> /usr/lib/.build-id/7d/2f0e2ceb4580c3ccd865e689bce9beb3a20903
> /usr/lib/.build-id/7e
> /usr/lib/.build-id/7e/ac33ea6338f316f03476c70f7c2d3743104a68
> /usr/lib/.build-id/8a
> /usr/lib/.build-id/8a/40a26934006152ad167875b61497065cbe3f7e
> /usr/lib/.build-id/9e
> /usr/lib/.build-id/9e/1b2107379d4830ecf3da8c29faf8e558c1eac2
> /usr/lib/.build-id/b0
> /usr/lib/.build-id/b0/ca696ceaa3a1e54722483ee55c5b12883d44f0
> /usr/lib/.build-id/b3
> /usr/lib/.build-id/b3/90fe4f2ac3dcea04aacf34b46b858466626a2e
> /usr/lib/.build-id/c6
> /usr/lib/.build-id/c6/645447744a17cc09f175e4d1f3bd8a441e1563
> /usr/lib/.build-id/db
> /usr/lib/.build-id/db/84b0bc26c9bb0eadc88a8ecde185e3db6452ba
> /usr/lib/.build-id/f3
> /usr/lib/.build-id/f3/5c37a5dc142928053784cb072403988b0f65dc
> /usr/lib/.build-id/fb
> /usr/lib/.build-id/fb/46eef57284d7136974be48fba4b0550a86c998
> /usr/lib/.build-id/fc
> /usr/lib/.build-id/fc/e691679c6ac99d2940daf63c6fe3221ee1af77
> /usr/share/doc/can-utils
> /usr/share/doc/can-utils/README.md
> /usr/share/licenses/can-utils
> /usr/share/licenses/can-utils/COPYING
> [pmatilai at sopuli x86_64]$
> 
> I typically use 80x35 terminals and even on that, what you end up
> seeing 
> is the hex gibberish of build-ids that is totally irrelevant for
> most 
> people completely dominates the output that used to be spot-on
> relevant. 
> Not good.
> 
> So I'm wondering how to make this less ugly.
> 
> The first thing that comes to mind is adding a %hidden virtual
> attribute 
> and using it on build-ids (which are in a hidden directory on the 
> filesystem), which would hide such files rpm -ql etc output by
> default 
> (but with a cli-switch to show it all).
> 
> Another option would be hiding files and directories starting with
> dot, 
> ie mirror the filesystem behavior. Obviously with a switch to show
> them too.
> 
> The idea of being able to hide arbitrary files from default output
> makes 
> me a bit queasy. And also %hidden wouldn't help with existing
> packages, 
> (mass) rebuilds are needed with that option. So it seems like two
> points 
> in favor of the fs behavior, but dunno.
> 
> Thoughts, comments, better ideas?
I definitely like FS approach (2). But also having %hidden (1) would
find its use I think.
> 
> 	- Panu -
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-maint mailing list
> Rpm-maint at lists.rpm.org
> http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint

- -- 
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=uEwi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Rpm-maint mailing list