On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:36:54AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:30:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > So, i am not entirely sure how d-i handles the case at hand here, where > > libraries are part of the actual image, but symbols are removed during > > reduction, because they are not needed by the .udebs in the image, but they > > are needed by .udebs loaded later on. > > > > My impression is that d-i loads the full libraries later on, or something > > such. > > If they did that, you could just wget a full GDB binary. It doesn't
Mmm. > need anything else in the package besides the executable. But I don't > think d-i does what you describe (since I tried to use this approach > for strace recently, and there were missing symbols in libc.so.6). I really don't see how reduction could work if it has to take into account all .udebs which can possibly or not be loaded into d-i. I also have not noticed the d-i build process loading not-in-the-ramdisk .udebs, but i have missed them. Also, i don't see how such a process could survive for example a package which was added after the build of the image, or modified or whatever. What did you do with strace ? Create a .udeb out of it and include this one ? or just load in the binary ? Or did you include the strace.udeb into the ramdisk image ? > If someone more familiar with d-i than I am can confirm that the udeb > will be useful, I can try to get GDB to build one, but it seems like > a very strange package to have a udeb. Well, gdb and strace would be two great packages to have as .udeb. Also, .udebs can be useful even outside of d-i, at least those not having any menu item thingy, like libraries, and utility packages (like ssh or parted or whatever for example). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
