On 10/5/20 8:35 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 12:08:28PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: >> On 10/5/20 10:39 AM, Josh Triplett wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 09:32:28AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: >>>> On 10/4/20 11:09 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: >>>>> libstdc++6, installed on every system due to dependencies, contains >>>>> various Python scripts for GDB under /usr/share/gcc-10/python/ . These >>>>> scripts should go in a dev package, not in a library package. >>>> >>>> There's no part in the policy that requires debugging scripts to be part >>>> of the >>>> development package, and I think it's not very intuitive. There's also no >>>> advocated policy if these scripts should be part of a dbgsym package, and >>>> there's no debhelper support to add these files to a dbgsym package. So >>>> yes, I >>>> think the library package is the correct package to have these files. It >>>> makes >>>> the library package a little bit bigger, but these don't hurt there. >>> >>> There's precedent for things related to debugging a particular library >>> going into the -dev package for that library. For example, >>> /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpthread-2.31.so-gdb.py >>> lives in libc6-dev, not in libc6. >> >> these were only added later than the libstdc++6 ones, so no precedence. > > I mean that it's precedent for putting debug-related things in -dev > packages, not that it came before libstdc++6 specifically. Would it be a > *problem* to put these files in the -dev package?
usually people are used to to install the -dbg packages for debugging. How would you tell people when to install all corresponding -dev packages? >>> There may be a better place for them, but this seems like a reasonable >>> approach. >>> >>> My concern is that I'm trying to build a minimal Debian-based system, >>> libstdc++6 is hard-required because among other things apt depends on >>> it, and it's shipping ~132k of Python scripts. >> >> if that's a minimal system, you probably could use the same technique like >> probably removing files in /usr/share/doc. > > That's a workaround, and it'd be nice if it just needed to cover a few > general locations shared among many packages, not individual files > from one package. agreed for that case. However usually all these pretty printer files are installed in the autoload location.
