On Fri, 2022-03-25 at 00:14 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > I haven't forgotten about this. The glibc elf.h change has been > > integrated now. But when I wanted to resync with the elfutils > > libelf/elf.h version I noticed something that look like ABI > > breakage: > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2021-December/133589.html > > > > I am trying to get a response to that before syncing and > > integrating > > your patch. > > Sorry, I didn't like the answer I got. Basically this is ABI > breakage, > it is just that the old constants were never really used, so some > have > simply been renamed or given different constant values. Sigh. > > That of course is not a good reason to then forget about your > patch. Apologies. > > I took the elf.h update separately. Tweaked your patch a little and > added a patch of my own to make elflint recognize the new note type. > > [PATCH 1/3] libelf: Sync elf.h from glibc. > [PATCH 2/3] libebl: recognize FDO Packaging Metadata ELF note > [PATCH 3/3] elflint: Recognize NT_FDO_PACKAGING_METADATA
No problem at all, change looks good, thanks for following up.
> I saw Fedora 36 now has these new package notes. Sadly they omit the
> debugInfoUrl field. Which makes them less useful imho. Do you happen
> to know why that wasn't included?
Not sure, I think the Fedora-side tooling was there already before we
added this to the spec, so it was simply not synced. I'll follow-up and
ask to get it included - might be too late for F36 unfortunately (not
sure new archive-wide rebuilds are going to happen), but if it gets
approved it should be there for F37.
I have included the field in the first PoC that uses the spec in
Debian, for the systemd packages:
$ readelf --notes /usr/lib/systemd/systemd | grep Packaging
Packaging Metadata:
{"type":"deb","os":"debian","name":"systemd","architecture":"amd64","version":"250.4-1","debugInfoUrl":"https://debuginfod.debian.net"}
--
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
