Re: Automatic debug packages

[Carsten Hey <carsten@debian.org>]

* Philipp Kern [2011-03-08 16:30 +0000]:
> On 2011-03-08, Carsten Hey <carsten@debian.org> wrote:
> > A prerequisite to automatically add debug packages for all
> > architectures is to change the way how packages are uploaded and/or
> > build[1].  In the upcoming ftpmaster meeting[2] from the 21st until
> > the 27th of March, one possible way to change it (or rather a part
> > of it) will be discussed:
>
> I don't think that's true.  In fact I also suggested back then that it
> should "just" part of the normal build process.  Then DDs would upload
> ddebs just like the buildds would.

I read that there are plans to work on translation packages (TDeps)
before Wheezy is released.

Adding TDeps to Debian is in many aspects similar to adding automatic
debug packages (DDeps).  Given an reasonable abstract view on the
possible implementations of both, they can be grouped into:

 * An upload by a DD includes all additional packages.  Whether DD
   uploaded packages are thrown away does not matter.  This is the
   variant you mentioned.
 * An upload by a DD does not include additional packages.  DD uploaded
   packages are used.  Additional packages are created on the Debian
   infrastructure:
    - DDeps: DD uploaded packages are rebuilt to extract debugging
      packages, the resulting binary package is thrown away.
      debug.debian.net is an implementation of this.
    - TDeps: The message catalog is extracted from the uploaded binary
      package (or it is rebuilt, but this would be pointless) and the
      binary package is repacked.
 * An upload by a DD does not include additional packages.  DD uploaded
   packages are thrown away and rebuilt.  Ubuntu does this (or rather
   something equivalent) since ages to create debug packages.

Using implementations from the same group for DDeps and TDeps seems to
be a sane choice.

> The throw-away part isn't really connected with that.

If we decide to use a implementation from the first or the second group,
the throw-away part is indeed not connected with that.

If we decide to use a implementation from the third group, the
throw-away part is a prerequisite.

Before the throw-away part is decided, discussing the different ways of
implementing and choosing one could be a waste of time.

Questions to consider during such a discussion include:
 * Do we want users which build private packages to build also DDeps and
   TDeps?
 * Do we want to have a different building process (or build options)
   for to be uploaded packages?


Regards
Carsten