Josselin Mouette wrote: > The most obvious solution I can come up for this issue is to build a > separate tree with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="noopt nostrip", at least for i386. > That means having a dedicated machine that would be used to run a buildd > for that. Unfortunately, I don't have such a machine, and I don't know > of an available i386 project machine. > > Are there some people here who'd be interested, or who could point me to > available resources? If not, do you have other ideas to make debugging > packages easily available?
My feeling for some time has been that we should introduce a separate section in the archive, or a separate archive and come up with the infrastructure to upload -dbg packages to there, with separated debugging symbols in them (see dh_strip). This could be done for nearly all binary packages, not just libraries. Then people who want all the -dbg packages available can just add an apt line and install them at will. This could be done with varying levels of support in the official archive. Ideally we could just upload -dbg packages and have katie split them out into a separate section and generate Packages files for that. However like the data section I don't know if this is likely to ever happen, very few people are able to set it up. It would be nice if we could set up a third party site first that collects the packages, but it's hard to do because ideally you want to get -dbg packages from the autobuilders too, and you don't want them to hit the regular archive. The approach that seems IMHO to be most likely to be doable is to modify katie to ignore the -dbg packages in Incoming, not add them to the main archive, and shunt them to a holding directory, and then set up a separate archive to hold them, either on a debian machine or a debian.net machine and tie this in so it gets new -dbg packages from the holding directory. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
