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

Re: Experimental ddeb support in debhelper and lintian (Was: Re: -dbg packages; are they actually useful?)

On Monday 20 April 2015 12:46 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> That can be very quickly quite a set of packages. apt ~23, apititude
> ~40, mpv (similar to mplayer) ~159, kate (KDEs "notepad") ~465. [0]
> That can be tuned by excluding non-libraries, but that has its own
> drawbacks (private libraries shared between a very closely related set
> of packages for example), aka:
> For a quickshot direct dependencies are probably enough (personal
> observation; the times I needed debug symbols for non-direct
> dependencies are far and in between, but maybe I am just lucky).
> If you wanna go fullcircle, its probably better to analyse a core-dump
> for which symbols are needed exactly instead of getting everything.
> I think Ubuntu has a tool dubbed apport-retrace (Debian has it in
> experimental only) which is supposed to do that (but I just remember
> hearing the name in this context, nothing more)

Just FYI. Apport is included in this year's GSoC, for Debian. There are
a bunch of Debian specific features we'd like to see. Once those are
done, we should be in a better position to propose apport for

And apport will be one of the prime consumers of these debug symbols. So
thank you for reviving on this subject.

Given the large number of mailing lists I follow, I request you to CC me
in replies for quicker response

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: