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

Re: Automatic Debug Packages

On Sat, Aug 08 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:

> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 08 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> I've documented the .ddeb format in the wiki page [1] ("DDeb Format",
>>> which is short since the format is basically that of .debs). Do we
>>> really need this to be documented in policy?
>>         Not if that is all that is. So ddebs are just  -dbg packages
>>  renamed to foo_version_arch.ddeb (you do not need ddeb in the name
>>  since they are called .ddebs.)
> dpkg doesn't know about filenames AFAICS. So you can't coinstall
> foo_1.0-1_i386.deb and foo_1.0-1_i386.ddeb, right? So we do want the
> -ddeb suffix. 

        If we are going to enshrine ddebs into policy, we might as well
 teach dpkg about ddebs.

>>         The wiki does not seem to impose any additional rules on the
>>  ddebs (I assume that all the restrictions on a normal package still
>>  apply).

> Right.

        So why are we creating a whole new class of packages which dpkg
 does not know about, and which are substantially the same as the
 current -dbg packages? Is it to just reduce debian/control file bloat?
 Or to create debug packages whether or not the maintainer cooperates?

        The result appears to be to create a package automagically (the
 details appear fuzzy to me, perhaps I have not been paying attention),
 and add things to changes files even when the package is unknown to
 debian/control, so it is uploaded and processed by the archive scripts.

        All this seems to require large amounts of infrastructure work,
 why not add dpkg to the set of ddeb aware tools?

>>         Seems like then all that is needed is to build the package as
>>  normal, and after the dpkg invocation to build the package, one just
>>  adds a call to mv. This is simple.
> You can build a .ddeb manually, yes. However for some cases
> (e.g. packages using debhelper and building ELF binaries) a .ddeb will
> be automatically created (if none is created manually) and detached
> debugging symbols will be put there. I'll try to automatize other
> languages too, so that having full archive coverage is as simpler as
> possible.

        I don't use helper packages, including debhelper. So far, policy
 has not required me to, so if you want to put anything about ddebs in
 policy, there should be a route for people not using debhelper to
 contribute to debug packages in Debian, and not be relegated to the
 status of second class packages.

Tom's hungry, time to eat lunch.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: