Re: Policy or best practices for debug packages?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 06:16:22PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>For various reasons we don't use it at work - instead we added some GCC
>command line options to relocate the debug info at compile time. In
>the end, it comes down to the same result.
Were these private hacks to GCC? I tried looking at the gcc info
file, and I didn't see any options to force the debug info to a
different pathname; maybe I missed it, or the info file I was looking
for was too out of date (gcc 4.1.3).
> I think /usr/src/debian/ would be traditional. It really doesn't make
> a difference, though :-)
Yeah, the only reason why I was hesitant about that is I was concerned
that some users might already be using /usr/src/debian for their own
purposes (in violation of the FHS), and would get annoyed if we
started installing stuff there. Hence my suggestion of burying it in
the /usr/lib/debug/usr/src hierarchy. But I don't really care what
directory name we use, as long as we all agree on some pathname to
I might start experimenting with with one of my packages, just to see
how it works out. I suppose I should send mail to the ftp-masters
directly and ask them this questions, but do people think there would
be many objections if some -dbgsrc packages started appearing in the
archive as an experiment?
I could even imagine some hacks where the rules file does a diff of
the build source directory against the orig.tar.gz file and the
-dbgsrc package only contained the diffs, and the postinstall script
searched for the orig.tar.gz file and pulled it off the network, and
then applied the diffs, in order to keep the size of the -dbgsrc file
small. That might answer the concerns about the size of the archive
exploding, if this were to become popular.