Re: -dbg packages; are they actually useful?
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:19:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:03:28AM +0000, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:17:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Remaining concerns:
> > > - each of these dbg packages requires manual modification to the source
> > > package (incl. adding the package to debian/control)
> > > - each has to go through the NEW queue
> > > - each takes up space afterwards in the Packages file
> > > Much better if these can be generated centrally as part of the builds.
> > What about backports?
> > What about locally-built packages?
> What about them? Are you suggesting that we should instead continue to
> manually add -dbg packages to all source packages for the benefit of people
> who aren't even using our binary packages?
Maybe. I'm only stating the problems I encounter.
> > ("Sorry, we can't help you debug your probelem until you ditch that
> > package you built and build from source like Real Men should").
> Or they could:
> - build their packages with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nostrip, the standard
> mechanism for building packages containing unstripped binaries, or
> - use the pkgbinarymangler script, available as a package from Ubuntu, to
> autogenerate debug packages from any debhelper-using package as part of
> the build
It means I have to rebuild the package. And hope I have a similar enough
build environment to the one originally used.
With rpm there's no such problem, as a separate debug package is
created automatically. I just have to keep it somewhere.
Tzafrir Cohen | email@example.com | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's
firstname.lastname@example.org | | best
ICQ# 16849754 | | friend