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

Re: Automatic Debug Packages

Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 02:58:45AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Roger Leigh wrote:
>>> This fails to address the rather valid concern brought up about
>>> having different versions of libraries and binaries installed
>>> from the same source package.  Having one .ddeb per binary would
>>> solve this elegantly.
>> Except that in that case, the old library will be NBS and thus I see no point
>> why you would want to keep it installed. The only reason would be if it was
>> meant to stay around, but in that case I'm sure the source package names would
>> be different.
> The scenario has been described already in the thread.

And I don't consider NBS packages a good reason to change it.

>>> It's also rather space-inefficient for the user.
>> If that bothers you, you can use the share we plan to provide.
> No thanks, I like my debug symbols in a nice convenient packaged
> format, signed by the archive admins.

And we will provide that.

> While you might plan to be providing some fancy (yet enigmatic) service
> based upon the debug deb content,

> I still want them installable,


> preferably automatically getting all dependent debug symbols as well
> using apt.

I want to provide {apt-get,aptitude} debug commands, but that's orthogonal to
this discussion.

> Preferably with a .deb extension;

Why does that matter to you?

> I see no reason why they
> can't be first-class Debian packages

They are.

> in addition to being used for
> mysterious as-yet-unspecified purposes.

"""A share would be provided shipping all the debugging symbols that use build
ids (so it's easy to mount it in /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/ and have all the
debugging symbols available to debuggers and anything that needs them)."""

If that's mysterious, tell me where. That has been in the wiki page linked from
the message that started this thread.

> I can't say I'm particularly enthused with the apparent lack of
> consideration for most of the issues with the proposal brought up in
> this thread.

No comments.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: