On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 05:06:32PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> This seems overall like a decent plan, but there are a few cases I'd be
> concerned about:
>
> (a) Developer builds package, something gets upgraded on developer's
> (libc, gcc, whatever), an executable dumps core on client machine --
> if developer didn't already build executable with debugging symbols that
> core dump is useless.
Ditto if the developer does a `debian/rules clean' on his local source
tree after uploading; and at some point later does an apt-get upgrade.
This could be solved by the developer keeping a .deb with debugging
symbols around.
For me, at least, keeping a .deb around is much more convenient than an
entire source tree.
> (b) Developer builds package, then goes back again and builds package
> with debugging symbols turned on. Developer gets annoyed at the extra
> time this new and improved system incurrs.
More likely: developer builds package with debugging symbols on, tests,
fixed, rebuilds, gets it right, then rebuilds again with debugging
symbols turned off in order to upload. Could be annoying, yes.
> (c) Developer builds package and package with debugging symbols, but
> carelessly didn't upload the package without debugging symbols so the
> package with debugging symbols gets put in Incoming and propagated...
Existing lintian errors will catch this:
E: tcpd: unstripped-binary-or-object usr/sbin/tcpd
I don't see this as being really likely to cause problems.
(b) and (c) could also be avoided by changing it so that developers only
need to upload source, and let the autobuilders make *all* the binaries.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpBCxdgekf4_.pgp
Description: PGP signature