[Rpm-ecosystem] Trying to understand %buildsubdir and debuginfo generation

[Jeff Johnson]

On Apr 26, 2018, at 7:27 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu> wrote:

>>>>>> "JJ" == Jeff Johnson <n3npq at me.com> writes:
> 
> JJ> You are unlikely to achieve any joy trying to set or change its
> JJ> value.
> 
> I'm trying to comprehend how you came to the conclusion that I wanted to
> change its value.
> 
 I did not say you wished to change he value. You did ask about %buildsubdir, and since this is not just a convo between thee and me, I provided the usual caveat emptor boilerplate.

> JJ> I know of no reason why a -debuginfo package needs a %build
> JJ> section.
> 
> Well, what I'm seeing is that the generation of debuginfo sections
> requires a %build section to be present
> 

Note that the macro definitions you are trying to understand are not from rpm itself (so you perhaps should be consulting with other SME's than me).

> JJ> What is much more likely is that you have some odd ordering
> JJ> of scriptlet sections,
> 
> Well, it goes %prep, %build (empty), %install, %check, %files and
> %changelog.  As far as I know, that's the normal ordering for a Fedora
> specfile.
> 

Good. I guessed at unusual behavior causes, nothing more.

> JJ> [...] because -debuginfo packages are just an invisible subpackage
> JJ> where existing section markers are overloaded to insert -debuginfo
> JJ> sub package info (which -- iirc from 15yo memory -- happens with
> JJ> %prep, not %build, but ICBW)
> 
> Yes, I know.  It happens in %install, not %prep.  I even included the
> macro definition where it happens in my message.
> 

Talk to whomever decided that there was a need to overload %install with a test on %buildsubdir.

I -- as the person responsible for the original rpm -debuginfo subpackage generation implementation -- can not think of any reason why there is a need to overload %install with a test on %buildsubdir.

But perhaps I'm in the early stages of senility. Oh well ...

God luck!

hth

73 de Jeff
> - J<