You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 1, 2024. It is now read-only.
The rpmbuild will automatically generate a debuginfo package with binary debug symbol information given the following conditions:
%debug_package is defined within the spec file before any scriplet declarations (ie %prep, %pre, ect...)
The binaries to be included have debug symbols present.
Given the above is true rpmbuild will automatically generate a second rpm (subpackage) in the same directory as the primary rpm. But with -debuginfo tacted onto the name field.
At present there is no direct capability within the plugin to add the %debug_package property to the generated spec file.
But it can be injected via the description field by adding a new line before the property.
I request a field be added when true will add %debug_package to the generated spec file, as well as attach the debuginfo rpm as an artifact (debuginfo could be used as a classifier).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
The rpmbuild will automatically generate a debuginfo package with binary debug symbol information given the following conditions:
Given the above is true rpmbuild will automatically generate a second rpm (subpackage) in the same directory as the primary rpm. But with
-debuginfo
tacted onto the name field.At present there is no direct capability within the plugin to add the %debug_package property to the generated spec file.
But it can be injected via the description field by adding a new line before the property.
I request a field be added when true will add
%debug_package
to the generated spec file, as well as attach the debuginfo rpm as an artifact (debuginfo could be used as a classifier).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: