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

Re: Automatic Debug Packages

On Tue, Aug 11 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu27@gmail.com> writes:
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>>         To recap:
>>>  1) packages with detached debugging symbols should be named
>>>     ${package name}-${debug suffix}. As a corollary, no ordinary
>>>     packages names may end in  ${debug suffix}.
>> They may be automatically created. They may also be manually created (if
>> they are listed in debian/control, so for complex packages where they
>> need some manual work, it can be done).
> Whether they're automatically or manually created is irrelevant for Debian
> Policy.  Policy describes what the output should be, not what tools one
> uses to get there.
> I think the relevant question for Policy is whether these packages will be
> listed in debian/control in the source package, in Binary in the *.dsc
> file, and in Binary/Files/Checksums-* in the *.changes file.  And I don't
> know the answer to those three questions from the discussion so far.

        Here is my take on this:
 a) helper packages may be extended to created debug packages by
    default, whether or not they're mentioned in control. This means
    that any package rebuilt the next time will get debugging packages,
    even if the maintainer takes no action. Policy should not prevent
    this use case, so requiring that the control file mentions them
    should not be done.
 b) Some upstream packages, even if helper packages are used, might not
    be readily amenable to automated generation of debug packages, and
    manual help might be required. In this category I would also like to
    throw in packages that do not use helper packages; since themanual
    crafting of debug symbol packages is a commonality. These packages
    have the debug packages in debian/control, and htey are built
    normally (either through custoim scripts, or helper packages). In
    this case, the helper should not automatically generate debug symbol
    packages; and thus give us a mechanism to over ride, on a package by
    package basis, the creation of automated debug packages.

        So I think at this point it is premature for policy to decide
 one way or the other about debug symbol packages being mentioned in the
 control file (and dsc and changes).

        I am also of the belief that perhaps the dsc and the changes
 file should treat them like normal .debs; and the differentiation occur
 at the archive level, when archive scripts try to determine where these
 packages go.

        Another reason is that we should not be accepting any packages,
 even debug packages, in the archive unless we have a check sum match in
 a cryptographically signed file anyway.

Ten years of experience should add up to more than one year's experience
multiplied by ten.
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: