[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Build-Depends: foo-dbg ?



On Wed, 06 May 2009 18:39:32 +0200
Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:

> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 17:35 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> > Should source packages need to build-depend on debug packages?
> 
> When it is needed.
> 
> > (See python-gtk2 for one example. python-all-dbg is small but
> > python-numpy-dbg is 15Mb!)
> 
> python-all-dbg brings python2.[45]-dbg, which makes 48 MB.

:-(
 
> > Just curious - is it only python packages that do this?
> 
> If you want to build an extension for python-dbg, you need python-dbg
> (which is a different interpreter). Is that so strange?

It did strike me as unusual when working from a basis of autotools and
C/C++ packages. If the -dbg package is more than just debugging
symbols, should those other parts be in the -dev and leave the
debugging symbols alone? Is that practical with python-all-dbg?

I'm more used to seeing -dbg packages as only being useful at runtime,
not on autobuilders.

The context is Emdebian, where the Grip flavour is intended to be a
native build environment, if only for individual packages, local
packages and similar. Yes, -dev packages have a large installation
requirement and building packages has a large temporary data
requirement. It's just that adding -dbg packages to that mix did seem
excessive.

I'm assuming from your reply that it's only when building extensions to
python itself that you'd need python-all-dbg rather than for "ordinary"
python builds like GUI python applications? (I don't know enough about
python builds.) Is python-gtk2 a different interpreter?

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/

Attachment: pgpt3wayp0VM1.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: