On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 09:30:36AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: >On 2015-06-02 05:53, Christian PERRIER wrote: >>Quoting Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org): >>>Hi Niels, >>> >>>Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> (2015-06-01): >>>> There is an existing experimental patch series for debhelper to have it >>>> automatically create "ddebs"[1][2]. Currently, it /also/ happens for >>>> udebs, which leads me to: >>>> >>>> * Is it useful for you to have ddebs generated from udebs? >>> >>>I don't think so. >> >>The same stands for me. >> >>Still, I haven't followed discussions about ddebs very closely : my >>understanding of them is probably the same than Niels' knowledge of >>udebs..:-). Still, I understand the basic concepts (providing debug >>symobols and debug "stuff" in dedicated packages in a similar way to >>what Ubuntu is, IIRC, doing in Launchpad). >> >>And with that understanding, I don't really see how it could be >>possible to use these in the D-I context. > >There was https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=396365 about gdb >providing a udeb, which has been closed with no action. Now we are dropping >mklibs (I think?) so at least the libraries wouldn't be minified anymore. >Without a debugger available the ddebs wouldn't help. If the solution is to >rebuild the image with an extra gdb file, then I can also rebuild the >individual udebs with nostrip enabled.
Actually, I think they might be useful just for helping with core dumps after the fact? We don't tend to have that many binary-arch udebs, but debugging a crash is difficult in-situ. At least getting a core file out will help. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "Because heaters aren't purple!" -- Catherine Pitt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150602112554.gc9...@einval.com
