Another one from the Fora:
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&topic_id...
Thread started by robertsong: centos 5.3 glibc debuginfo is not updated "Hello, I have updated to centos 5.3, the latest version of glibc-2.5-34. but I found the debuginfo rpm package was not updated to this version. Now the debuginfo version is 2.5.24 in http://debuginfo.centos.org/5/i386/. glibc-debuginfo-2.5-24.i686.rpm glibc-debuginfo-common-2.5-24.i386.rpm
When would the rpm be updated ?"
In investigating this I noticed that the Forum user is correct and that the metadata in the arch-specific directories is even older than the packages. Those ought to be either re-generated or removed.
From http://debuginfo.centos.org/5/x86_64/repodata/
[ ] filelists.xml.gz 23-Oct-2007 20:41 3.0M [ ] other.xml.gz 23-Oct-2007 20:41 4.0M [ ] primary.xml.gz 23-Oct-2007 20:41 255K [TXT] repomd.xml 23-Oct-2007 20:41 951
I reviewed recent debuginfo threads and could not find anything on this issue. I presume the repo config should be something like:
#Debug Info [debuginfo] name=CentOS-$releasever - DebugInfo #baseurl=http://debuginfo.centos.org/$releasever/$basearch/ baseurl=http://debuginfo.centos.org/$releasever/ gpgcheck=1 enabled=0 gpgkey=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/RPM-GPG-KEY-CentOS-$releasever protect=1 priority=1
Is there a mirrorlist mechanism for debuginfo?
Phil
On 05/15/2009 02:49 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
Is there a mirrorlist mechanism for debuginfo?
no, debuginfo machines are sometimes rotated, and handled in rdns, the demand for debuginfos translates to something just under 0.01% of overall b/w and package requests :)
Over the next few weeks the plan is to completely overall the way updates are done, and debuginfo pkgs process should come in line with the rest of the updates.
If there are specific pkgs missing, please open reports at bugs.centos.org with pkgnames.
- KB
On May 15, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 05/15/2009 02:49 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
Is there a mirrorlist mechanism for debuginfo?
no, debuginfo machines are sometimes rotated, and handled in rdns, the demand for debuginfos translates to something just under 0.01% of overall b/w and package requests :)
It is kinda of ironic that FLOSS software, which prides itself on community involvement in bug fixing, has also managed to construct a -debuginfo distribution framework that makes it more, not less, difficult to find backtraces for common flaws.
The only point being that citing "demand" statistics is at least as much an indication of the rickety feebleness of the -debuginfo distribution framework as it is an indication of "No interest".
73 de Jeff
On 05/15/2009 03:12 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
It is kinda of ironic that FLOSS software, which prides itself on community involvement in bug fixing, has also managed to construct a -debuginfo distribution framework that makes it more, not less, difficult to find backtraces for common flaws.
The only point being that citing "demand" statistics is at least as much an indication of the rickety feebleness of the -debuginfo distribution framework as it is an indication of "No interest".
At the moment, its only a true reflection of where we are - which is why an interest in trying harder, better.
- KB
On May 15, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
At the moment, its only a true reflection of where we are - which is why an interest in trying harder, better.
Yep. Certainly no criticism of you or CentOS intended or implied.
But see the "better model" for deciding when/how -debuginfo packages get upgraded @RHT bugzilla, look for "Jan Kratchovil" in RPM bugs.
IMHO adding additional dependency hints or otherwise fiddling with -debuginfo packages is just gonna make a bigger mess.
The usage cases (and installation patterns) of -debuginfo packages warrant a different model than just the ususal "newer" version comparison done by rpm.
The "better model" isn't hard, has already been implemented according to Jan Kratchovil's RFE, and "works".
Just not in the RPM you are using.
73 de Jeff
Karanbir Singh wrote:
If there are specific pkgs missing, please open reports at bugs.centos.org with pkgnames.
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3622
Phil
On May 15, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
Another one from the Fora:
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&topic_id...
Thread started by robertsong: centos 5.3 glibc debuginfo is not updated "Hello, I have updated to centos 5.3, the latest version of glibc-2.5-34. but I found the debuginfo rpm package was not updated to this version. Now the debuginfo version is 2.5.24 in http://debuginfo.centos.org/5/i386/ . glibc-debuginfo-2.5-24.i686.rpm glibc-debuginfo-common-2.5-24.i386.rpm
When would the rpm be updated ?"
ATM, the mechanism for -debuginfo upgrades is known deficient for several years.
A better model for deciding when to upgrade/erase -debuginfo packages is described here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447708 and is already implemented (but not for the RPM you are using).
There's also the minor issue of how to handle package renaming wrto -debuginfo, most recently discussed here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499239 Again: not implemented in the RPM you are using.
There's a further issue of how to distribute -debuginfo packages efficiently, but that cannot even be asked until the model for deciding when/how to upgrade/erase -debuginfo packages is improved.
73 de Jeff
-
Jeff Johnson -
Karanbir Singh -
Phil Schaffner