Vincent Bernat writes:
> The page seems up-to-date
It makes no reference to why ‘foo-dbgsym’ is not enough, so the reader
doesn't have any guidance on which practice overrules the other.
> and already explains why Python is different (presence of a debug
> interpreter)
As I said, that doesn't
❦ 11 octobre 2016 10:38 CEST, Ben Finney :
>> Reading
>> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide#Building_python_-dbg_packages,
>> there is some hints to this
>
> The introduction of ‘foo-dbgsym’ automatic generated packages makes me
> quite sure those instructions are obsolete. But per
Iustin Pop writes:
> Reading
> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide#Building_python_-dbg_packages,
> there is some hints to this
The introduction of ‘foo-dbgsym’ automatic generated packages makes me
quite sure those instructions are obsolete. But perhaps they are not?
> but it's no
On 14.05.2016 23:26, Iustin Pop wrote:
On 2016-04-22 19:36:12, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 22.04.2016 16:58, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
Hi
Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages,
how do you handle the debug
/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/.x86_64-linux-gn
On 2016-04-22 19:36:12, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 22.04.2016 16:58, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages,
> > how do you handle the debug
> > /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/.x86_64-linux-gnu_d.so files?
> >
>
On 22.04.2016 16:58, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
Hi
Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages,
how do you handle the debug
/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/.x86_64-linux-gnu_d.so files?
They used to go in a generic -dbg package.
I'm thinking about rrdtool,
Hi
Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages,
how do you handle the debug
/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/.x86_64-linux-gnu_d.so files?
They used to go in a generic -dbg package.
I'm thinking about rrdtool, and it already has a lot of packages:
https://track
Christian Kastner writes:
> In http://wiki.debian.org/Python/DbgBuilds, we argued for ‘Recommends:
> python-dbg’ if the package can be used without the debug interpreter
> (eg: it contains the stripped debugging symbols for use with gdb);
> otherwise, ‘Depends: python-dbg’.
That covers it. Thank
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:23:35 +1100, Ben Finney
wrote:
> Howdy all,
>
> What relationship should be declared between a binary ‘python-foo-dbg’
> package and the ‘python-dbg’ package?
>
> I can't remember the rationale, but the consensus was not what I
> expected. Should the binary package ‘Depend
Howdy all,
What relationship should be declared between a binary ‘python-foo-dbg’
package and the ‘python-dbg’ package?
My search-fu must be weak today. I remember a discussion somewhere
regarding Python extensions in C and the resulting ‘python-foo-dbg’
package.
I can't remember the rationale,
10 matches
Mail list logo
