Re: On ddebs for udebs
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. Kind regards Philipp Kern -- 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/45554d65b5c13b3ccbdcc80e9668b...@hub.kern.lc
Re: On ddebs for udebs
On 2015-06-02 13:25, Steve McIntyre wrote: 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. Yeah, I guess in a post-mklibs world that might be helpful. (Note that you need the exact version of the debug symbols so you'd need snapshots of those as well.) Kind regards Philipp Kern -- 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/2eebac9ae1e3b7cbb90ba46e2a6c0...@hub.kern.lc
Re: On ddebs for udebs
On 2015-06-02 21:06, Philipp Kern wrote: On 2015-06-02 13:25, Steve McIntyre wrote: 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. Yeah, I guess in a post-mklibs world that might be helpful. (Note that you need the exact version of the debug symbols so you'd need snapshots of those as well.) Kind regards Philipp Kern Hi, From a quick chat on IRC yesterday with weasel, it is my understanding that it would not be an issue to get ddebs added to snapshot.d.o. ~Niels -- 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/556e8ac1.9050...@thykier.net
Re: On ddebs for udebs
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
Re: On ddebs for udebs
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. * Are there limitations or tweaks that I should be aware of in generating ddebs for udebs? - Can build-id based debug symbols be used? etc. Please note that I have very little practical experience with udebs and how they are used. You are doing me a favour if you assume I know less about udebs than you think I do. :) * If you see no benefit in having ddebs for udebs, please do not hesitate to let me know. I am more than happy to disable ddebs for udebs. Please wait until some other developers have had a chance to comment, though. ;) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
On ddebs for udebs
Hi, 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? * Are there limitations or tweaks that I should be aware of in generating ddebs for udebs? - Can build-id based debug symbols be used? etc. Please note that I have very little practical experience with udebs and how they are used. You are doing me a favour if you assume I know less about udebs than you think I do. :) * If you see no benefit in having ddebs for udebs, please do not hesitate to let me know. I am more than happy to disable ddebs for udebs. Thanks, ~Niels (Please CC me on replies.) [1] Extra debs containing only debug symbols from the original (u)deb. Similar to -dbg packages, except debhelper makes them without any manual configuration. [2] Thread at https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/05/msg00010.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: On ddebs for udebs
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. Please note that I have very little practical experience with udebs and how they are used. You are doing me a favour if you assume I know less about udebs than you think I do. :) * If you see no benefit in having ddebs for udebs, please do not hesitate to let me know. I am more than happy to disable ddebs for udebs. Please wait until some other developers have had a chance to comment, though. ;) The same stands for me (anyone feeling like waving a magic wand to have Joeyh contributing back to D-I and dh?). signature.asc Description: Digital signature
