Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> A pie in the sky option might be to have minidebuginfo/debuginfo reside
> in the same package as the binaries it belongs to but in separate files
> which are marked in the rpm filelist. Then rpm could have a --nodebuginfo
> similar to how it has --nodoc now. Not sure if that's either (1)
> something the rpm team would go for or (2) something that could be
> available in a time frame that the minidebuginfo authors would find
> acceptable.
1. it'd have to be available at the kickstart level too to be useful for us
and 2. I don't think it's that great a solution, either. (It'd still cause
trouble for DeltaRPMs, plus it's not that great to have RPM just not install
some files, we stopped using that RPM feature for translations long ago
because of the problems it caused, I don't think going back to doing things
that way would be a great idea.)
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
