Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:29:55 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
