Re: -dbg packages; are they actually useful?
On 2009-03-04, Steve Langasek <email@example.com> wrote:
>> What I really wish for is the ability to have a relatively centralized
>> location where the symbols from every single package ended up that was
>> separate from the normal mirrors.
> Yes, absolutely. Doing this right, though, requires integration with the
> buildd network, so that the debugging symbols can be extracted as part of
> the official build instead of being lossily reconstructed after the fact.
I'd like to see input from a ftpmaster here. Let's hope that we see a
new host with large storage soon. I've got 10G/suite/arch quoted from
Martin Pitt as an upper bound[*] based on his observations on Ubuntu.
As we want a data.debian.org anyway, where people could fetch large stuff
fast it would make sense IMHO to put those debug packages there too.
dak could easily extract it from the changes and send it to the other host
for serving, or they could be transmitted separately.
I'd be all open to try this on a few arches on the official buildd net.
If the experiment proves successful we could drop the -dbg packages
to save space on the normal archive mirrors.
>From my own observation I found the apport retracting in Launchpad
pretty helpful as you get meaningful stack traces without user
intervention. On the other hand integrating that is an even bigger beast.
[*] The real count currently looks more like 5G/release/arch, but this might
not be full coverage due to hickups of the cronjob.