Simon McVittie:
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 at 19:43:13 +0000, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> I do not mind managing a mass-bug filing for removing manual dbg
>> packages without reverse dependencies if that is any help.
>
> Is there a plan/timeline for having -dbgsym packages appear in testing
> (and ideally also stable backports), or alternatively, a conscious
> decision that debuggability of those suites is not something the project
> wants? When stretch gets close to being stable, I imagine we'd probably
> want security updates and stable bugfixes to get debug symbols too.
>
Good question and a fair point as a possible blocker for a potential MBF.
* We had a look at populating testing-debug but with little luck so
far on "quick fixes".
- Worst case, it will have to wait for someone (probably me) to add
support for it in Britney and related scripts.
* I am happy to enable dbgsym generation in debhelper in backports
(when I backport debhelper/10)
- *However*, it will require a backport of some changes in dpkg-dev
1.18.2 (either via pu or -backports). As I recall, they are
isolated in dpkg-genchanges (though I'd have to read up on it).
Thanks,
~Niels
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature