On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 02:00:52PM +0000, cho...@jtan.com wrote:
> Antoine Jacoutot writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:57:23AM +0000, cho...@jtan.com wrote:
> > >
> > > </tuppence>
> >
> > I don't quite understand your mail.
>
> This:
>
> > > > > What's the policy for adding debug packages to ports?
>
> but ...
>
> > See this:
> > https://man.openbsd.org/bsd.port.mk.5#THE_DEBUG_PACKAGES_INFRASTRUCTURE
>
> ... I had conflated debug packages with stripping (or rather, not)
> binaries so I was off on a bit of a tangent.
>
> If debug packages are needed the functionality exists to make them,
> in even better form than I had supposed, and if debugging needs to
> be done then having a complete build environment is worlds apart
> more useful than a symbol table (I presume the debug packages have
> a bit more than that but I haven't looked).
>
> So to get to the original point, DEBUG_PACKAGES doesn't look like
> something that's useful in the public version of /usr/ports. If
> anybody needs it then they've already got a complete (& working &
> tested) OpenBSD build environment in which to add it and do their
> debugging. What use the extra load on servers and maintainers?
Sorry but that does not make sense.
The whole point is to have debug packages available for official packages.
Not be forced to rebuild anything.
And we already have many (more than 370 debug-* packages in the snapshots
directory).
For 99% of them it only means adding DEBUG_PACKAGES=${BUILD_PACKAGES} in the
port Makefile.
I run bulk 24/7 and I maintain 300 or 400 ports (I stopped counting years ago),
I think I am entitled to say they're no real extra load here... unless I am
misunderstanding what you mean.
I think you should read the DEBUG_PACKAGES framework to understand.
--
Antoine
