Re: Compiling all packages with debug information?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 First of all, I think it's a great idea. Well, we have the src packages then we only needs other package '-dbg'. This one only need to change the options and install the libraries needed, It could make all the work to leave the dbg program ready to use, and uninstall it only needs to remove the package '-dbg'. I think that create this package it's not a lot of work for the mantainer and its size will be the smallest XD. Sorry for my English, corrections are welcome. Michal Čihař wrote: Hi Dne Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:51:12 +0200 Philipp Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a): I'd assume it's not so much the binary size of the packages, but the number of them ... that's why I asked whether a new branch might be better for them. Like stable, testing, unstable, experimental ... dbginfo. Then normal users wouldn't even see this packages. It is the size of packages what matters. In most cases debug symbols in -dbg packages much larger than stripped package itself. Just random package that I maintain: $ apt-cache show libgammu2 libgammu2-dbg | egrep 'Package:|^Size:' Package: libgammu2 Size: 423010 Package: libgammu2-dbg Size: 972178 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHDH9RBG3a4ia9y9QRAgi3AJ4xEXf3N82bHixemGGn4OuZEAUDLgCfS7Na hamBTJBaoRhBQ6wo2AOK980= =BB4h -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling all packages with debug information?
Carlos San Esteban [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First of all, I think it's a great idea. Well, we have the src packages then we only needs other package '-dbg'. This one only need to change the options and install the libraries needed, It could make all the work to leave the dbg program ready to use, and uninstall it only needs to remove the package '-dbg'. I think that create this package it's not a lot of work for the mantainer and its size will be the smallest XD. The packages would take up considerable space in the mirror network, which is not unlimited. It's not about the space consumed on the local system. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling all packages with debug information?
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Carlos San Esteban [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First of all, I think it's a great idea. Well, we have the src packages then we only needs other package '-dbg'. This one only need to change the options and install the libraries needed, It could make all the work to leave the dbg program ready to use, and uninstall it only needs to remove the package '-dbg'. I think that create this package it's not a lot of work for the mantainer and its size will be the smallest XD. The packages would take up considerable space in the mirror network, which is not unlimited. It's not about the space consumed on the local system. Oh, your private e-mail helped me understand what you're proposing. You're saying that we could set it up so that the local user could build the -dbg packages if they need them. One difficulty is that in general the debugging symbols from a different build will not match the libraries in the Debian archive, so the local user would need to build a whole new set of packages and replace the packages on their system with them. Otherwise, yes, that would work, although we don't really have a good mechanism for Debian packages to optionally build certain packages from the same source. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling all packages with debug information?
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 01:03:35AM -0700, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: Oh, your private e-mail helped me understand what you're proposing. You're saying that we could set it up so that the local user could build the -dbg packages if they need them. At this point, what's the advantage versus just supporting DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=debug in more packages? Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling all packages with debug information?
Hi, On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:27:40AM +0200, Philipp Marek wrote: How about compiling all programs with debugging information, and strip them into a -dbginfo package, or something likewise for apt-get source? Like the -dev packages only people who think they need them would install them, perhaps in a new repository dbginfo (like unstable, or testing). This is already done for a number of packages. The package names should have the prefix -dbg and install all debugging symbols to /usr/lib/debug/path so they are installable with apt-get / aptitude just like any other package. However, it is not a requirement yet to have a -dbg package for all source packages. People fear that the number of packages (and thus the archive size) grows too much. There is an ongoing discussion though about how to solve this - I could not find a pointer to it right now though. Cheers, Sebastian -- Sebastian tokkee Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/ Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Compiling all packages with debug information?
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:07:47AM +0200, Sebastian Harl wrote: Hi, Hi tokkee :) This is already done for a number of packages. The package names should have the prefix -dbg and install all debugging symbols to /usr/lib/debug/path so they are installable with apt-get / aptitude just like any other package. True, true, true... I guess it's a good solution as we have it now, if the maintainer thinks a -dbg package would be useful, he/she can create one and provide it to the users. I personally wouldn't do that for smaller packages which are compiled on normal modern i386 stuff in less than 15 minutes because I think that in this case the user can do that on his own. For big packages (like KDE for example) it's definitively better to have such a -dbg package. However, it is not a requirement yet to have a -dbg package for all source packages. People fear that the number of packages (and thus the archive size) grows too much. There is an ongoing discussion though about how to solve this - I could not find a pointer to it right now though. Mhh'k... Archivesize... How many percent of the whole mirrorsize belong to -dbg packages? Regards, -- .''`. Mario Iseli [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :Debian GNU/Linux developer `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling all packages with debug information?
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:16:12AM +0200, Mario Iseli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mhh'k... Archivesize... How many percent of the whole mirrorsize belong to -dbg packages? Well, if the whole archive was to have debug packages, they would take a significant amount of space. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling all packages with debug information?
Mario Iseli wrote: True, true, true... I guess it's a good solution as we have it now, if the maintainer thinks a -dbg package would be useful, he/she can create one and provide it to the users. I personally wouldn't do that for smaller packages which are compiled on normal modern i386 stuff in less than 15 minutes because I think that in this case the user can do that on his own. For big packages (like KDE for example) it's definitively better to have such a -dbg package. Well, not only big packages make problems ... some small programs might need a lot of libraries, and recompiling *all* of them is the biggest problem. Mhh'k... Archivesize... How many percent of the whole mirrorsize belong to -dbg packages? I'd assume it's not so much the binary size of the packages, but the number of them ... that's why I asked whether a new branch might be better for them. Like stable, testing, unstable, experimental ... dbginfo. Then normal users wouldn't even see this packages. Regards, Phil -- Versioning your /etc, /home or even your whole installation? Try fsvs (fsvs.tigris.org)! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling all packages with debug information?
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:27:40AM +0200, Philipp Marek wrote: Currently I'd have to recompile the packages myself, and installing them over the debian files - which is, depending on the package and its prerequisites, a major hazzle. The package maintainers provide the debugging information in the package (or in a separate package, even) is probably the best solution. However, you can rebuild the entire package yourself: http://people.connexer.com/~roberto/howtos/debcustomize That you are not stomping over the files that are tracked by the package manager. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Compiling all packages with debug information?
On 10/8/07, Philipp Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I'm running unstable I sometimes find bugs in applications. Now it would be very nice if there was some way to get the matching debug information for the packages, so gdb could print a better backtrace, or eg. show exactly which line segfaults. Packages built yourself with noopt+nostrip (where supported) would produce the better backtraces. Ubuntu already creates debug symbols for their whole archive: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2006-September/000195.html https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AptElfDebugSymbols https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+spec/apt-get-debug-symbols This would be a nice thing to have in Debian, especially moving dbg packages to a separate archive. There are some possible problems with this; for eg packages like openoffice which are very big and far bigger with debug symbols. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling all packages with debug information?
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:27:40AM +0200, Philipp Marek wrote: How about compiling all programs with debugging information, and strip them into a -dbginfo package, or something likewise for apt-get source? Like the -dev packages only people who think they need them would install them, perhaps in a new repository dbginfo (like unstable, or testing). You might want to read the discussion in this thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/04/msg00663.html it only covers libraries but many of the issues are similar. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Compiling all packages with debug information?
On Mon, Oct 8, 2007 at 11:51:12 +0200, Philipp Marek wrote: I'd assume it's not so much the binary size of the packages, but the number of them ... that's why I asked whether a new branch might be better for them. Like stable, testing, unstable, experimental ... dbginfo. Then normal users wouldn't even see this packages. It *is* the binary size of the packages. You don't want every -dbg package on the mirror network. See e.g. Package: libgl1-mesa-dri Installed-Size: 35840 vs. Package: libgl1-mesa-dri-dbg Installed-Size: 183696 or Package: xserver-xorg-core Installed-Size: 10848 vs. Package: xserver-xorg-core-dbg Installed-Size: 33128 Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling all packages with debug information?
Hi Dne Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:51:12 +0200 Philipp Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a): I'd assume it's not so much the binary size of the packages, but the number of them ... that's why I asked whether a new branch might be better for them. Like stable, testing, unstable, experimental ... dbginfo. Then normal users wouldn't even see this packages. It is the size of packages what matters. In most cases debug symbols in -dbg packages much larger than stripped package itself. Just random package that I maintain: $ apt-cache show libgammu2 libgammu2-dbg | egrep 'Package:|^Size:' Package: libgammu2 Size: 423010 Package: libgammu2-dbg Size: 972178 -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
