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

Bug#436419: marked as done (Mandatory -dbg packages for shared libraries)

Your message dated Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:08:05 +0100
with message-id <87k2nqzooa.fsf@deep-thought.43-1.org>
and subject line Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for shared libraries
has caused the Debian Bug report #436419,
regarding Mandatory -dbg packages for shared libraries
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
436419: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=436419
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Severity: normal

Previously discussed on debian-devel:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/04/msg00663.html

After the original idea, a more formal proposal developed:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/04/msg00692.html

"I'd like to see all library source packages having a minimum of 4
binary packages required by Policy: the SONAME, the -dev (without
SONAME), the -dbg (with SONAME) and a -doc package (without SONAME).
(Libraries for perl or other non-compiled languages would be exempt
from -dbg packages but not -doc.)"

After discussion on debian-devel, I'm happy to stick to only requiring
-dbg packages and pursuing API documentation in other ways and -dbg
packages would only be required where dh_strip can be used to generate
the debug symbols. In many packages, this is a one-line change to
debian/rules and new section in debian/control.

Joey Hess wrote:
> 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.

Manoj added:
>         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.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/04/msg00701.html

Policy could eventually require something like this:

"Any library source package capable of building with debug information
(i.e. with -g) must do so. Any such library source package must strip
the debug symbols into separate objects, provide a binary package
librarynamesoversion-dbg containing these separate objects
as /usr/lib/debug/path/to/ELF/object for each /path/to/ELF/object in
the main library package, and reference these separate objects in
a .gnu_debuglink section in the corresponding unstripped object."
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/serendipity/index.php?/archives/18-Mandatory-dbg-packages-for-libraries.html#comments
Josh Triplett <josh@freedesktop.org>  on 2007-04-22 19:48

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpyDyL6l9SoX.pgp
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

I believe with the recent addition of automatic debug packages[1], this
discussion is obsolete.

Ansgar

  [1] <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/12/msg00262.html>

--- End Message ---
Reply to: