Is this fixed now? On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 08:06:27AM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 13:54 +0100, Lubomir Kundrak wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 07:35 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > > > The objcopy test exists to detect certain breakage in objcopy. I'm not > > > sure that testing it in the condition that it only copies .text is > > > sufficient to find the original problem. Surely, that will need some > > > software archeology. The test comes from GRUB 1. Anyway, I'll rather > > > test objcopy under conditions close to those used in the build process. > > > > To be honest, I'm not completely sure either. > > OK, I understand that you also want the test to pass on native x86_64. > I'll try to find more information about the original objcopy problem and > make a fix that addresses both the build ID issue and the x86_64 issue. > > > > And what's the build ID for? Why do we want to keep it? > > > > It basically makes it possible to match an executable or library with > > its core dump and sources it was compiled for. The latter is achieved by > > placing the sources to build-specific directory. > > Fair enough. I've been helped by Fedora's debuginfo more than once. > > I understand it's OK to strip build ID from anything that is used in the > real boot (whether it's affected by the new objcopy bug or not), as we > want space saving and we cannot debug it in gdb. > > -- > Regards, > Pavel Roskin
-- Robert Millan <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
