find-debuginfo.sh change for gdb index

As discussed in:
Re: find-debuginfo.sh change for gdb index
http://sourceware.org/ml/archer/2010-q3/msg00022.html
for
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GdbIndex

I would just prefer line
+ [ -x /usr/bin/gdb-add-index ] && /usr/bin/gdb-add-index "$f"

that is would the /dev/null redirects, normally GDB does not produce any message anyway.

+ /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id gdb-7.1.90.20100721
extracting debug info from BUILDROOT/gdb-7.1.90.20100721-4.fc14.x86_64/usr/bin/gdb
extracting debug info from BUILDROOT/gdb-7.1.90.20100721-4.fc14.x86_64/usr/bin/gdbserver
extracting debug info from BUILDROOT/gdb-7.1.90.20100721-4.fc14.x86_64/usr/lib64/libinproctrace.so
symlinked /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/gdb.debug to /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/gdbtui.debug
33736 blocks
+ /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot

/usr/bin/gdb-add-index
is now present in gdb-7.1.90.20100721-5.fc14.

(In reply to comment #0)
> I would just prefer line
> + [ -x /usr/bin/gdb-add-index ] && /usr/bin/gdb-add-index "$f"
>
> that is WITHOUT the /dev/null redirects, normally GDB does not produce any
> message anyway.
[typo fix]

pinged in the list:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/139622.html

Proposing F14 Alpha Blocker as this is needed for feature completion.

This has come up before, and we don't consider incomplete features to be blockers. The feature process is separate from the release validation process. The fallback for a broken / incomplete feature, according to the process, is not to delay or block a release, but to go with the contingency/fallback plan for that feature.

--
Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers

(In reply to comment #4)
> This has come up before, and we don't consider incomplete features to be
> blockers. The feature process is separate from the release validation process.
> The fallback for a broken / incomplete feature, according to the process, is
> not to delay or block a release, but to go with the contingency/fallback plan
> for that feature.
>

Fair enough. Removed F14Blocker.

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 14 development cycle.
Changing version to '14'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

The one-liner version of the patch is in upstream rpm now. Should this still go to F14 or just rawhide? F14 is unlikely to get any mass-rebuilds at this stage so the benefit of the gdb index creation would be limited there.

As it is an approved F14 feature, it is a Bug filed for F14 and the GDB-side implementation went in F14 it should go for F14.

As the GDB startup performance problem is visible only on the several largest applications (OOo, Firefox etc.) these highly exposed packages usually get rebuilt even multiple times still before GA and then many times for updates.

This Bug is not MODIFIED as it is not present in rpm/f14 Fedora packages GIT.
It is neither RAWHIDE as it is not present even in rpm/master.
It could be UPSTREAM but I was requesting this feature for F-14, not upstream.
Thanks.

Okay, will do.

Oh and FYI on the bug status: I have this habbit o (ab)using the MODIFIED status to flag "fixed upstream, pending Fedora update" status for my own reference.

rpm-4.8.1-5.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpm-4.8.1-5.fc14

rpm-4.8.1-5.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update rpm'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpm-4.8.1-5.fc14

rpm-4.8.1-5.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.