Features/DebugInfoRevamp

From FedoraProject

< Features(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(new feature page)
 
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
= DebugInfo Revamp =
 
= DebugInfo Revamp =
<!-- The name of your feature -->
 
  
 
== Summary ==
 
== Summary ==
A revamp of the debuginfo rpm generation scheme exploiting new tools for
+
A revamp of the debuginfo rpm generation scheme exploiting new tools for DWARF compression.
DWARF compression.
+
  
 
== Owner ==
 
== Owner ==
Line 11: Line 9:
  
 
== Current status ==
 
== Current status ==
* Targeted release: [[Releases/11 | 11 ]]
+
* Targeted release: [[Releases/13 | Fedora 13 ]]
* Last updated: (DATE)
+
* Last updated: 2009-06-09
* Percentage of completion: 0%
+
* Percentage of completion: 1%
  
 
== Detailed Description ==
 
== Detailed Description ==
 
New work in elfutils will provide facilities for DWARF compression.
 
New work in elfutils will provide facilities for DWARF compression.
 +
The conventions for finding separate debuginfo files might be enhanced
 +
or rejiggered in tools like gdb and systemtap.  The rpmbuild macros
 +
and scripts for generating debuginfo packages will be rewritten.
 +
These are expected to make the debuginfo rpms much smaller.
  
 +
Possibly the standard will change to split debuginfo packages into
 +
debuginfo proper (/usr/lib/debug files) and sources (/usr/src/debug files)
 +
as separate subpackages.
  
 
== Benefit to Fedora ==
 
== Benefit to Fedora ==
<!-- What is the benefit to the platform?  If this is a major capability update, what has changed?  If this is a new feature, what capabilities does it bring? Why will Fedora become a better distribution or project because of this feature?-->
+
Much smaller debuginfo rpms, quicker to download, smaller to host/mirror, etc.
  
 
== Scope ==
 
== Scope ==
<!-- What work do the developers have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release?  Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->
 
  
== How To Test ==
+
elfutils team has to write the DWARF compression tools (will also replace
<!-- This does not need to be a full-fledged document.  Describe the dimensions of tests that this feature is expected to pass when it is done.  If it needs to be tested with different hardware or software configurations, indicate them.  The QA team will turn this information into a more complete test plan.  The more specific you can be, the better the final test plan will be.
+
rpm's debugedit), come up with debuginfo convention changes.
  
Remember that you are writing this test plan for interested testers to use to check out your feature - documenting what you do for testing is OK, but it's much better to document what *I* can do to test your feature.
+
elfutils team + rpm/redhat-rpm-config maintainers have to decide about
 +
subpackage conventions and implement new macros/script to replace rpmbuild
 +
find-debuginfo.sh magic.
  
A good Test Plan should answer these four questions:
+
Either gdb team has to adapt it to new conventions, or DWARF tool + rpm
 +
deployment plan could include exploding in %post to current layout.
  
0. What special hardware / data / etc. is needed (if any)?
+
If rpm subpackage convention changes, possibly rel-eng needs to adjust mash
1. How do I prepare my system to test this feature? What packages
+
for new naming convention and multiple debuginfo-related rpms per package.
need to be installed, config files edited, etc.?
+
2. What specific actions do I perform to check that the feature is
+
working like it's supposed to?
+
3. What are the expected results of those actions?
+
  
-->
+
== How To Test ==
 +
The elfutils team is set up for mass-testing against all the existing
 +
debuginfo rpm ELF files and will use that to test the DWARF transformation
 +
tools.  https://fedorahosted.org/elfutils/wiki/DebugInfoTesting
 +
 
 +
When https://fedorahosted.org/elfutils/wiki/RpmDebugInfo work is complete,
 +
we should do mass rebuild tests outside the buildsystem to rebuild all of
 +
rawhide with the new toolset.  We can then unpack all that data and run
 +
format tests against it.
 +
 
 +
Maybe do this twice, once first with the new rpmbuild helpers hacked to do
 +
dwarflint+pack+unpack+dwarflint+pack.
  
 
== User Experience ==
 
== User Experience ==
<!-- If this feature is noticeable by its target audience, how will their experiences change as a result?  Describe what they will see or notice. -->
+
* Quicker to download and install debuginfo rpms.
  
 
== Dependencies ==
 
== Dependencies ==
<!-- What other packages (RPMs) depend on this package?  Are there changes outside the developers' control on which completion of this feature depends?  In other words, completion of another feature owned by someone else and might cause you to not be able to finish on time or that you would need to coordinate?  Other upstream projects like the kernel (if this is not a kernel feature)? -->
+
 
 +
* elfutils work.
 +
* Might like a mass rebuild to get all new debuginfo rpms for the release.
  
 
== Contingency Plan ==
 
== Contingency Plan ==
<!-- If you cannot complete your feature by the final development freeze, what is the backup plan?  This might be as simple as "None necessary, revert to previous release behaviour."  Or it might not. If you feature is not completed in time we want to assure others that other parts of Fedora will not be in jeopardy. -->
+
 
 +
Possibilities:
 +
* We can punt the whole thing.
 +
* We can do it but skip the mass rebuild.
 +
* We can punt adapting gdb et al if we do a deployment scheme that explodes to compatible old data in %post.
  
 
== Documentation ==
 
== Documentation ==
<!-- Is there upstream documentation on this feature, or notes you have written yourself?  Link to that material here so other interested developers can get involved. -->
 
  
 +
* https://fedorahosted.org/elfutils/wiki/RpmDebugInfo
  
 
== Release Notes ==
 
== Release Notes ==
  
<!-- The Fedora Release Notes inform end-users about what is new in the release.  Examples of past release notes are here: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/ -->
+
* '''FIXME''': Should have some notes about conventions and tools when decided.
<!-- The release notes also help users know how to deal with platform changes such as ABIs/APIs, configuration or data file formats, or upgrade concerns.  If there are any such changes involved in this feature, indicate them here.  You can also link to upstream documentation if it satisfies this need.  This information forms the basis of the release notes edited by the documentation team and shipped with the release. -->
+
  
 
== Comments and Discussion ==
 
== Comments and Discussion ==
  
 
* See [[Talk:Features/DebugInfoRevamp]]
 
* See [[Talk:Features/DebugInfoRevamp]]
 
  
 
----
 
----

Latest revision as of 18:02, 29 September 2009

Contents

[edit] DebugInfo Revamp

[edit] Summary

A revamp of the debuginfo rpm generation scheme exploiting new tools for DWARF compression.

[edit] Owner

[edit] Current status

  • Targeted release: Fedora 13
  • Last updated: 2009-06-09
  • Percentage of completion: 1%

[edit] Detailed Description

New work in elfutils will provide facilities for DWARF compression. The conventions for finding separate debuginfo files might be enhanced or rejiggered in tools like gdb and systemtap. The rpmbuild macros and scripts for generating debuginfo packages will be rewritten. These are expected to make the debuginfo rpms much smaller.

Possibly the standard will change to split debuginfo packages into debuginfo proper (/usr/lib/debug files) and sources (/usr/src/debug files) as separate subpackages.

[edit] Benefit to Fedora

Much smaller debuginfo rpms, quicker to download, smaller to host/mirror, etc.

[edit] Scope

elfutils team has to write the DWARF compression tools (will also replace rpm's debugedit), come up with debuginfo convention changes.

elfutils team + rpm/redhat-rpm-config maintainers have to decide about subpackage conventions and implement new macros/script to replace rpmbuild find-debuginfo.sh magic.

Either gdb team has to adapt it to new conventions, or DWARF tool + rpm deployment plan could include exploding in %post to current layout.

If rpm subpackage convention changes, possibly rel-eng needs to adjust mash for new naming convention and multiple debuginfo-related rpms per package.

[edit] How To Test

The elfutils team is set up for mass-testing against all the existing debuginfo rpm ELF files and will use that to test the DWARF transformation tools. https://fedorahosted.org/elfutils/wiki/DebugInfoTesting

When https://fedorahosted.org/elfutils/wiki/RpmDebugInfo work is complete, we should do mass rebuild tests outside the buildsystem to rebuild all of rawhide with the new toolset. We can then unpack all that data and run format tests against it.

Maybe do this twice, once first with the new rpmbuild helpers hacked to do dwarflint+pack+unpack+dwarflint+pack.

[edit] User Experience

  • Quicker to download and install debuginfo rpms.

[edit] Dependencies

  • elfutils work.
  • Might like a mass rebuild to get all new debuginfo rpms for the release.

[edit] Contingency Plan

Possibilities:

  • We can punt the whole thing.
  • We can do it but skip the mass rebuild.
  • We can punt adapting gdb et al if we do a deployment scheme that explodes to compatible old data in %post.

[edit] Documentation

[edit] Release Notes

  • FIXME: Should have some notes about conventions and tools when decided.

[edit] Comments and Discussion