On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 05:56:25PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > +++ Steve Langasek [2013-05-13 11:22 -0500]: > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 06:21:24PM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > > > On Monday 13 May 2013 03:55 PM, Arno Töll wrote: > > > > note that, unlike Ubuntu we do not provide automated debug packages. > > > > Hence many crash reports aren't usable at all when they are generated on > > > > Debian systems. > > > This could be a start. It could help users request debug packages from > > > package maintainers. > > This is a poor use of package maintainers' time. The problem of debug > > symbols packages needs to be solved centrally for the whole archive, not > > with continued use of one-off builds. > I second this. This is one thing Ubuntu has done rather better than > Debian IMHO: mechanised the process of making debug packages so there > usually is one without each package having to explicitly declare it > and munge the rules file to make it. Adopting some similar scheme (or > even the same one) makes a lot of sense to me. > Does anyone object to doing this? Are there problems with doing it? From past discussions, I think there's a very clear consensus in favor of doing this; it's now a SMOP. The requirements are, in order: - implement the changes necessary to ensure all binary packages in the archive are built on the buildds, not on developers' systems[1] - deploy centralized infrastructure, outside of the main archive, to permit collecting debug symbols packages for distribution - adjust the buildds to begin generating debug symbols packages automatically - perhaps reusing pkgbinarymangler from Ubuntu, or perhaps using it as a reference So I don't believe there's actually anything further to be discussed... it just needs someone to do the work. I suggest that anyone interested in helping should talk with the ftp team. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org [1] let's not get dragged into the bikeshed again over the question of developers being allowed to do source-only uploads, which is immaterial to this discussion :P
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature