El sáb, 11-03-2006 a las 11:26 +0100, Loïc Minier escribió: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2006, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > The only arguably significant problem would seem to be with Packages.gz, > > and I'm not sure a couple more -dbg packages would really matter for > > that. > > I counted around 130 packages under pkg-gnome, so it's simply not > something applicable on all of GNOME as is. Of course we can continue > adding -dbg packages for the important stuff, it just doesn't scale. > (And that's only for pkg-gnome!) > > Perhaps the trick used by dbg libs to store only the debugging symbols > themselves can be used on all packages (without splitting them). Ross > seems to think these would be good enough debugging symbols, and this > would: > - removes the need of 2 builds > - removes the pain of maintaining dependencies > but I have no idea of the size impact The problem with using dh_strip and keeping symbols around is that it does not enable all debug help that can be included in the software. Of course, that will make backtraces sent by users much more interesting and helpful. But anyway, adding ~200 -dbg packages is something I think should be thinked and asked to ftp-masters. As a perhaps crazy idea, debug symbols should be kept in something like dbg.debian.org... at least for not core packages. Cheers, -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo jsogo@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente