On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 08:08 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > There doesn't seem to be anything in policy about debug packages, are > there any wiki pages or best practices documents about what are the best > ways to create debug packages? There was some discussion around #436419, seeking to add some Policy in this area: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/04/msg00663.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/04/msg00692.html > Some of the questions I have are: > > *) I assume that the priority of -dbg packages is extra As advised by lintian and enacted by ftp-masters. > > *) What section should -dbg packages be placed into? Should it be the > section that the parent package is in, or something like "devel"? Library -dbg packages will almost inevitably end up in lib. Personally, I think that's right. > > *) Do we dump everything into /usr/lib/debug, i.e., > /usr/lib/debug/sbin/e2fsck? Or should we put it in > /usr/lib/debug/<pkg>, i.e., /usr/lib/debug/e2fsprogs/sbin/e2fsck? > Most packages I've seen seem to be doing the former. /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libqof.so.2.0.0 I don't see why a package directory would be useful there but the real question is: *) The current usage is /usr/lib/debug/ - if we change that, would the tools using -dbg packages be able to find the symbols? > > *) Is it OK to include the -dbg information in a library's -dev package? > Or should it be separated out? Otherwise as more and more packages > start creating -dbg packages, the number of packages we have in the > debian archive could grow significantly. This was covered in the original discussion - a separate section of the archive is a better solution. Not everyone who needs the -dev needs the -dbg - e.g. the autobuilders do *not* need -dbg symbols for build-dependencies. > > *) Red Hat includes source files in their debuginfo files, which means > that their support people can take a core file and get instant feedback > as to the line in the source where the crash happened. But that also > means that their debuginfo packages are so huge they don't get included > on any DVD's, but have to be downloaded from somebody's home directory > at redhat.com. (which appears not to be published, but which is very > easy to google for. :-) What do we want to do? Combine apt-get install foo-dbg with apt-get source foo ? Isn't it up to the debugging tool to correlate one with the other, rather than the distro? -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part