On 2009-08-13, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Ah, and it looks like the automated crash reporting offers to download the
>> -dbgsym packages and install them.
> Reading the spec, it seems to me that the primary motivation was
> for users to provide crash dumps with bug reports, and not much s
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>
>
>> There will still be a repository with all the .ddebs.
>
> And aptitude and dpkg will know how to install ddebs, somehow?
> and synaptic, etc?
Yes, dpkg, apt-get, aptitude and synaptic all work perfectly
Russ Allbery wrote:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AptElfDebugSymbols is the specification. It does
> use *.ddeb. There isn't any clear statement about how *.ddeb packages
> differ from *.deb packages. It looks like, by and large, they don't,
> except they may not need to contain the same set of thin
Philipp Kern writes:
> And I have to agree with Emilio that I don't see the point of a 1:1
> relationship of ddeb to binary package just for the sake of library
> transitions. I wonder if we could just unpack the debugging build-id
> objects to some other location than globally and point gdb to
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AptElfDebugSymbols is the specification. It
>> does use *.ddeb. There isn't any clear statement about how *.ddeb
>> packages differ from *.deb packages. It looks like, by and large, they
>> don't, except they may n
Russ Allbery writes:
> Bill Allombert writes:
>> 1) As written, the policy change induce maintainers to make changes to
>> their packages that will cause them to have a bug. This is not
>> acceptable.
>> 2) As discussed previously, there are ways to tweak the process to
>> avoid this bug while
6 matches
Mail list logo
