On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:19:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:03:28AM +0000, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:17:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > Remaining concerns: > > > > - each of these dbg packages requires manual modification to the source > > > package (incl. adding the package to debian/control) > > > - each has to go through the NEW queue > > > - each takes up space afterwards in the Packages file > > > > Much better if these can be generated centrally as part of the builds. > > > What about backports? > > > What about locally-built packages? > > What about them? Are you suggesting that we should instead continue to > manually add -dbg packages to all source packages for the benefit of people > who aren't even using our binary packages?
Maybe. I'm only stating the problems I encounter. > > > ("Sorry, we can't help you debug your probelem until you ditch that > > package you built and build from source like Real Men should"). > > Or they could: > > - build their packages with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nostrip, the standard > mechanism for building packages containing unstripped binaries, or > - use the pkgbinarymangler script, available as a package from Ubuntu, to > autogenerate debug packages from any debhelper-using package as part of > the build It means I have to rebuild the package. And hope I have a similar enough build environment to the one originally used. With rpm there's no such problem, as a separate debug package is created automatically. I just have to keep it somewhere. -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il | | best ICQ# 16849754 | | friend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org