Web lists-archives.com

Re: Better infrastructure for dbgsyms

Thanks for your response, Niels,

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > BTW, in some discussions some other questions were raised:
> > 
> > - Is it really a good idea that foo-dbgsym depends on "foo (== 
> > foo-version)"? Wouldn't a Conflict or breaks on "foo (!= foo-version)" 
> > make more sense respective package? Consider that you want to analyze the 
> > core dump on a different system and foo may pull in quite a lot of 
> > dependencies, start servers, etc.
> > 
>  could be debugging coredumps from multiple versions on the same
> machine.  As a debugger, you are basically interested in the
> /usr/lib/debug files themselves and not the dbgsym.deb.
>   The .deb packages happen to be the only transport mechanism that
> Debian provides, but we should consider that they limit people to
> basically debugging on the same distribution as they are running  (at
> least if you want to dbg files for libc and other low level libraries).

Yes, I agree that being able to only download and unpack the packages into 
some directory should be available as an alternative. This would make 
root-access un-neccessary.

In gdb, one can use 'set debug-file-directory' to a search patch with 
several directories.

> Anyway, The relation was added for two reasons:
>  * It was a "requirement" imposed to me when I wrote it from several
>    others.  I presume that it was historical to match that of -dbg
>    packages
>  * To make dbgsym packages trivially policy compliant (without
>    duplicating the copyright file), I used usr/share/doc symlinks.

true, I hadn't thought about the copyright file.

> > - Is it allowed for packages that are not in the debug section to depend 
> > on packages in the debug section. [...]
> > 
> Not in Debian.  The "main" component of the "debian" archive is
> self-contained; the "debian-debug" archive is an add-on on top of this.
> [...]

> Largely, it is the technically similar to a package in main depending on
> a package in non-free (except for the legal/ethical implications).

> > - Would an option to put all symbols from a source package into a single 
> > dbgsym package make sense? This would allow to get rid of all those dbgsym 
> > packages with only a single small file in them.
> > 
> Technically, it should rather trivial if we ignore some corner cases.
> Notably, the dbgsym would no longer be (bit-for-bit) reproducible under
> "noX" profiles (that exclude packages).
> We might also have to replace the usr/share/doc symlink in favour of a
> real copyright file (or assume that dbgsym packages cannot contain
> copyrightable information / is not subject to license terms or define
> that they inherit their license information from $SOMEWHERE).

ok. That's probably not worth the effort, then.

> > - Should we put the URL of the debug sym sources.list entry into the 
> > release file of the non-debug sym section? That way, apt could determine 
> > the location of the dbgsym packages by itself without having to edit 
> > sources.list.

> I think that is an interesting idea and would go nicely hand in hand
> with the request for other mirror metadata in #761348 (like what is the
> base suite for "add-on suites" like experimental)

thanks for the pointer. I have sent a comment to that bug report.