Re: Automatic Debug Packages
On Tue, Aug 11 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> writes:
>> Le mardi 11 août 2009 à 13:03 -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>>> * What about contrib and non-free packages? Do they just lose here?
>
>> How about yes?
>
> I'm okay with that as an answer. I just want to document it if so.
So policy is going to prohibit contrib or non-free packages
with debugging symbols (or, at least, debug packages that may use the
common nomenclature)? This seems kinda drastic. So the packages with
debug symbols from those sources will continue to live in the primary
archive, and not go into the specialized debug area,
>> If we use build IDs (and this has quite some advantages, like being able
>> to do more than just dump the ddebs on a repository), this can lead to
>> having the same detached debugging symbols in two binary packages, since
>> sometimes a binary is built twice the same exact way and put in two
>> different binary packages.
>
> Hm, really? The toolchains that I'm familiar with basically never
> produce the same binary twice; something is always slightly different
> from timestamp information. Could you give an example of such a case
> in the archive right now where identical binaries are in multiple
> packages so that I can better understand how this happens?
The only way this can arise is if you build once, and copy the
same files into two conflicting packages. Silly, but nothing in policvy
prohibits it as long as the packages either conflict or put the files
in different locations.
>> The consensus on #debian-dak when we discussed this specific issue
>> was to use one ddeb for each source package by default, and to let
>> the door open to the maintainer overriding this default with several
>> ddebs in a source, using a new header in the control file. This way
>> we can keep things as simple as possible, without losing the
>> possibility to handle corner cases that will arise.
> In this case, I believe that, in order to comply with some of our
> DFSG-free licenses, we will have to ship a copyright file in the debug
> package.
>
> Also, some source packages are *huge*, and I don't want to have to
> install 50GB of debugging information for, say, all of KDE just
> because I want the debugging symbols for a single library. I suppose
> that's why you have the escape clause of letting maintainers do it
> differently if they desire, but there I really would like to see us
> treat the entire archive identically if at all possible.
Personally, I think that one debug package per binary package
makes more sense, and the optimization for duplicate files in multiple
packages is likely to be too small to be worth considering; and we can
have the header revert the decision: one debug file/binary, unless the
user specifies that theres should be one giant debug package (and I am
not sure how many packages will need to do this because they ship
duplicates anyway.
manoj
--
Leibowitz's Rule: When hammering a nail, you will never hit your finger
if you hold the hammer with both hands.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: