Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #8935

Re: python debug packages

Path	csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.python
Subject	Re: python debug packages
Date	Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:20:01 +0200
Message-ID	<sr1o5-4PT-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<rqLbQ-419-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rqNdE-5NN-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <rzgsf-N4-173@gated-at.bofh.it> <sr1ep-4LC-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Mailbox-Line	From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Tue Oct 11 09:15:33 2016
Old-Return-Path	<bernat@debian.org>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status	No, score=-11.9 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, FOURLA=0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, PGPSIGNATURE=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Policyd-Weight	using cached result; rate: -5
Organization	Debian
Mail-Followup-To	debian-python@lists.debian.org
User-Agent	Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Mailing-List	<debian-python@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/14277
List-ID	<debian-python.lists.debian.org>
List-URL	<https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/>
List-Archive	https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/87lgxvjlgv.fsf@zoro.exoscale.ch
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	61
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Date	Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:14:56 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID	<87lgxvjlgv.fsf@zoro.exoscale.ch>
X-Original-References	<571A3C02.6050104@debian.org> <571A610C.7050208@debian.org> <20160514212625.GC28930@teal.hq.k1024.org> <85shs3mgbb.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
Xref	csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:8935

Show key headers only | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

 ❦ 11 octobre 2016 10:38 CEST, Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> :

>> Reading
>> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide#Building_python_-dbg_packages,
>> there is some hints to this
>
> The introduction of ‘foo-dbgsym’ automatic generated packages makes me
> quite sure those instructions are obsolete. But perhaps they are not?
>
>> but it's not clear that only automatic debug packages work for Python
>> packages. Would it make sense to update the wiki page and say "don't
>> migrate to dbgsym packages as Python needs debug extensions and not
>> only debug symbols"?
>
> Reading that reference again, I am not much wiser. It does not reference
> ‘foo-dbgsym’ packages so the reader doesn't know which instructions are
> to be followed.
>
> Could someone who understands *why* ‘foo-dbgsym’ is not sufficient,
> please update the wiki page to be explicit about what is special to
> Python and under what specific circumstances we still need ‘foo-dbg’
> packages.

The page seems up-to-date and already explains why Python is different
(presence of a debug interpreter) and that the -dbg package contains the
symbols for the regular extensions as well as the unstripped extensions
for the debug interpreter.
-- 
When one burns one's bridges, what a very nice fire it makes.
		-- Dylan Thomas

Thread

python debug packages Jean-Michel Vourgère <nirgal@debian.org> - 2016-04-22 17:30 +0200
  Re: python debug packages Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2016-04-22 19:40 +0200
    Re: python debug packages Iustin Pop <iustin@debian.org> - 2016-05-16 04:30 +0200
      Re: python debug packages Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2016-05-17 12:30 +0200
      Re: python debug packages Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2016-10-11 11:10 +0200
        Re: python debug packages Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2016-10-11 11:20 +0200
          Re: python debug packages Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2016-10-11 12:40 +0200

csiph-web