[PATCH] find-debuginfo: unless -q -q, print messages what big steps we are at

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Denys,

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 03:31:03PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> For a reader of rpmbuild's log, it's rather unclear what find-debuginfo
> is doing. It used to be too verbose, "extracting debug info from FILE"
> for every file, and while this can be suppressed now, we still end up
> with something semi-mysterious like this:
> 
> ...
> extracting debug info from /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/xyz
> gdb-add-index: No index was created for /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/xyz
> gdb-add-index: [Was there no debuginfo? Was there already an index?]
> symlinked /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libcpupower.so.0.0.1.debug to /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libcpupower.so.debug
> symlinked /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libcpupower.so.0.0.1.debug to /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libcpupower.so.0.debug
> cpio: binutils-2.30/bfd: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
> cpio: binutils-2.30/bfd/aout-target.h: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
> cpio: binutils-2.30/bfd/aoutx.h: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
> cpio: binutils-2.30/bfd/archive.c: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
> cpio: binutils-2.30/bfd/archive64.c: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
> ...
> 775655 blocks
> + /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot
> + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-ldconfig
> ...
> 
> The reader is left confused. "What these cpio errors are about?
> Why those sources are not found?" (Well, because not every source
> name extracted by 'debugedit -l' has to exist, but this requires
> considerable digging aroung to understand).
> 
> We can give a few messages explaining what general steps we go through:
> 
>     Extracting debug info from N files
>     DWARF-compressing N files
>     Creating .debug symlinks for symlinks to ELF files
>     Copying sources found by 'debugedit -l'
> 
> This is also useful to get a feeling which steps are time consuming.
> Kernel builds often need to investigate this aspect. To help a bit more,
> add "find-debuginfo: starting" and "find-debuginfo: done" messages too.
> 
> This patch adds these messages.
> 
> Two -q -q options suppress these messages too.

I like this idea, but I am wondering if instead of -q -q we should
have a -v,--verbose flag for the very verbose output. Then this
explanary output could be the default. And -q,--quiet would suppress
even those message.

Cheers,

Mark