Niko Tyni: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 06:26:21AM +0000, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Niko Tyni: >>> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 12:55:10PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote: >>>> Package: perl >>>> Version: 5.22.1-3 >>>> Severity: wishlist >>>> >>>> Detached debugging symbols are moving to a separate archive suite. >>>> >>>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/12/msg00262.html >>>> >>>> We should migrate the symbols in perl-debug as well. >> >> Seems reasonable, though please note that you will probably want to keep >> *non*-debug symbols in perl-debug (e.g. the perl debugger) > > Somewhat confusingly, the perl debugger (= perl5db.pl) is in > perl-modules-*. The thing in the perl-debug package is /usr/bin/debugperl, > a perl binary compiled with -DDEBUGGING to enable assertions and the > like. I was thinking that one would stay in perl-debug, yes. >
Indeed - that had me confused! >>> So we can't use "automatic -dbgsym packages" as provided by debhelper, >>> as we have a long standing tradition of trying to avoid needing perl >>> (and hence debhelper) to build perl. >>> >> I am a bit curious about this. AFAICT several essential packages (now?) >> use debhelper (incl. coreutils, gzip, tar and dpkg - not to mention >> glibc). So I do not see how you can get to compile perl without needing >> perl (before even getting to perl)? >> >> Not saying you should use debhelper; I just wanted to challenge the >> statement a bit to see if it still makes sense. :) > > Yeah, it's a good question that I was sort of avoiding :) It has come > up every now and then, I think the last time was with #797106 (binNMU > changelogs). So far we've sticked to tradition. See also > > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/perl-maintainers/2012-January/002870.html > > [...] > > I note that the recent progress on perl cross build support has promise > in this area and might well let us stop worrying about all this. However, > it's new enough that I wouldn't really want to count on it quite yet. > Thanks for the explanation. I suspect it might indeed be time to talk with the bootstrap people about like you suggested in #797106 message 10. >>> Seems like the easiest way to implement this manually is to put -dbgsym >>> packages in debian/control just like regular ones. >> >> I think you might need to *omit* them from debian/control. > > The options I see are either to go the dh_gencontrol way and create > DEBIAN/control files for the -dbgsym packages on the fly, or hardcode > them in the source debian/control file. The latter feels simpler to me. > The most useful thing about the automatic creation part AFAICS is not > having to change all the Debian source packages, which is not relevant > for this case. > > I don't see why having -dbgsym packages in debian/control couldn't work, > unless there are some restrictions about them not listed in some part > of the .changes file (maybe Binary:) or something like that? > I don't remember if its absence from d/control is required for it ending in the proper archive. I'll punt that to Ansgar. :) Thanks, ~Niels
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
