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

Bug#436419: Mandatory -dbg packages for shared libraries

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:44:27 +0200
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 07, 2007, Neil Williams wrote:
> > i.e. the reverse sense - the dbg name should be forced to use the lib
> > prefix where the only packages built from that source already use the
> > lib prefix.
> > 
> > This is (IMHO) implicit in "library source package".
>  I think the package name should not be specified by policy; it would
>  simply be natural to use such a name.  The requirement could simply be:
>     source packages shipping at least one (public) shared library must
>     ship detached debug symbols for this library in a debug package


With some explanation of how easy this usually is to achieve in the
Developers Reference, I'd be happy with that.

IIRC, Manoj preferred to make this a recommend before migrating to a
must to limit the number of packages that are immediately made RC

Hopefully, there is time to get to 'must' before Lenny.
> > I wondered about that. Take gpe-expenses - if a new application
> > (gpe-cash) depends on libqofexpensesobjects0 (and provides another
> > shared library too) then I don't see why someone debugging gpe-cash
> > should be obliged to install the debug symbols for gpe-expenses as
> > well as libqofexpensesobjects.
>  Would it matter?  Do we really want to foresee in policy whether the
>  debug symbols of package x are too large to be along package y's debug
>  symbols?  I think we should simply require debugging symbols and
>  recommend a single package where it makes sense.  It's never too late
>  to notice that a -dbg is huge and could be usefully split.

That's fair.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgp9E6NFQA0By.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: