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

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?



Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:29:55 -0400, Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> said: 
> 
> > So while I'd love to have a way to have -dbg packages available for
> > every binary, I actually am happy with this proposal to do it for only
> > every library (plus whatever other binaries really need it). And it's
> > a direction we're already moving in, with, as I mentioned, 227
> > lib*-dbg packages already in the archive. That's more than 10% of all
> > our libraries already done[3].
> 
>         So, making it a should would make 90% of our library packages
>  insta-buggy.
> 
> > So I suggest that we take this as an existing practice, document it as
> > a "should" in policy for now, document *how* to do separated debugging
> > symbols in the developers reference (which does not currently seem to
> > mention it at all), and go add -dbg versions of our library packages.
> 
>         I would rather add it as a recommended practice in policy, with a
>  note that it will become a should/must as we get better coverage, and
>  _also_ provide examples of what maintainers need to do to create
>  separate debugging symbol packages in an informative footnote.

Well, we've made more than ~300 packages insta-buggy with policy
changes before. It's not insta-rc-buggy. OTOH, I don't really care; 300
bug reports could be mass-filed w/o it being a "should" in policy.

Note that I've already written some documentation for
developers-reference in #420540. The policy-relevant bits are that we
use /usr/lib/debug/<path-to-object>, that the files should not be
executable (possibly a common mistake since objcopy preserves executable
bits IIRC), and that the package names end in -dbg and the debug packages
depend on an equal version of the package they provide debugging symbols
for.

-- 
see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: