Re: Automatic Debug Packages
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Gunnar Wolf<email@example.com> wrote:
> Russ Allbery dijo [Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 05:51:33PM -0700]:
>> > 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.
Automation is definitely the recipe for success when it comes to open source.
>> Could you explain a bit more about what merits you see in creating
>> something that we call a different type of package rather than just
>> listing debug packages in debian/control and building them as we do now
>> and handling section debug specially in the archive software? Is it just
>> the avoiding of the need to add a bunch of debian/control entries?
> I would add:
> • .ddebs could be autobuilt — I am not familiar with the procedure,
> but I suppose a debian/control field would indicate whether this
> package allows being built as a .ddeb (as there would be no way
> i.e. to build a Perl module as a ddeb)
My question then is, would it be possible to get debugging symbols for
the C/XS stuff we compile? Especially for figuring out segfaults that
would be tremendously useful, even in the context of Perl modules.
> • Less namespace explosion. We would get rid of all the -debug
I understand what you mean, but I hope you don't intend get rid of
*all* those packages, because not all of them are what you expect them
to be. perl-debug for example is just Perl compiled with debugging
symbols enabled (you run it via debugperl rather than perl). Steve
Langasek mentioned this in a previous mail.
> Gunnar Wolf • firstname.lastname@example.org • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com