Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?
On 22-Apr-07, 16:22 (CDT), Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 16:14 -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 22-Apr-07, 14:39 (CDT), Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd like to see all library source packages having a minimum of 4
> > > binary packages required by Policy: the SONAME, the -dev, the -dbg and
> > > a -doc package. (Libraries for perl or other non-compiled languages
> > > would be exempt from -dbg packages but not -doc.)
> >
> > 1. Rather than cluttering the archive and Packages file with -dbg
> > packages that will (mostly) never be used, how about mandating a "debug"
> > target in library debian/rules files, so that when someone does need the
> > debug package, it's trivial to build. Since the person most likely to
> > need the target is the package maintainer, there would be some incentive
> > to make sure it works.
>
> Because segfaults are often not easily reproduced. Having the ability to
> analyse a crash that occured when the user did not have the -dbg
> packages installed is not possible unless you have the original symbols
> the compiler created.
That's an argument in favor of making the base library package built
with debug symbols and then stripped[1], not of requiring -dbg packages.
Steve
[1] This all seems vaguely familiar. Didn't we go through this argument
back in the late 90s? IIRC, we originally did ship libs with (stripped)
debug symbols, for just the reason that Robert is promoting.
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
Reply to: