Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #8464 > unrolled thread

python debug packages

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python

Contents

  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

#8464 — python debug packages

Hi

Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages,
how do you handle the debug
/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pppppppp.x86_64-linux-gnu_d.so files?

They used to go in a generic -dbg package.

I'm thinking about rrdtool, and it already has a lot of packages:
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/rrdtool

I'm considering creating a specific python-rrdtool-dbg package.

Other options I can think of are:
- Put the debug .so file into the main python-rrdtool package
- Do not migrate to new style -dbgsym packages and keep everything in
rrtool-dbg, like it is now.
- Stop bothering about this debug .so file, and trash it.

Any suggestion anyone?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8465

On 22.04.2016 16:58, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
> Hi
>
> Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages,
> how do you handle the debug
> /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pppppppp.x86_64-linux-gnu_d.so files?
>
> They used to go in a generic -dbg package.
>
> I'm thinking about rrdtool, and it already has a lot of packages:
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/rrdtool
>
> I'm considering creating a specific python-rrdtool-dbg package.
>
> Other options I can think of are:
> - Put the debug .so file into the main python-rrdtool package

no, that would add dependencies on the python-dbg packages by default.

> - Do not migrate to new style -dbgsym packages and keep everything in
> rrtool-dbg, like it is now.

that would be my preferred solution.

> - Stop bothering about this debug .so file, and trash it.

please don't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8532

On 2016-04-22 19:36:12, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 22.04.2016 16:58, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages,
> > how do you handle the debug
> > /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pppppppp.x86_64-linux-gnu_d.so files?
> > 
> > They used to go in a generic -dbg package.

[…]

> > - Do not migrate to new style -dbgsym packages and keep everything in
> > rrtool-dbg, like it is now.
> 
> that would be my preferred solution.

Reading
https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide#Building_python_-dbg_packages,
there is some hints to this, 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"?

thanks,
iustin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8538

On 14.05.2016 23:26, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On 2016-04-22 19:36:12, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 22.04.2016 16:58, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages,
>>> how do you handle the debug
>>> /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pppppppp.x86_64-linux-gnu_d.so files?
>>>
>>> They used to go in a generic -dbg package.
>
> […]
>
>>> - Do not migrate to new style -dbgsym packages and keep everything in
>>> rrtool-dbg, like it is now.
>>
>> that would be my preferred solution.
>
> Reading
> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide#Building_python_-dbg_packages,
> there is some hints to this, 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"?

sounds fine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8934

Iustin Pop <iustin@debian.org> writes:

> 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.

-- 
 \        “With Lisp or Forth, a master programmer has unlimited power |
  `\     and expressiveness. With Python, even a regular guy can reach |
_o__)                               for the stars.” —Raymond Hettinger |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8935

[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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8936

Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> writes:

> The page seems up-to-date

It makes no reference to why ‘foo-dbgsym’ is not enough, so the reader
doesn't have any guidance on which practice overrules the other.

> and already explains why Python is different (presence of a debug
> interpreter)

As I said, that doesn't explain it.

Please consider that someone reading those instructions may have no more
sophisticated idea of debug symbol packages than “I heard that they are
done automatically now, so I'll just rely on that”.

So this:

> and that the -dbg package contains the symbols for the regular
> extensions as well as the unstripped extensions for the debug
> interpreter.

doesn't address the confusion, I think.

-- 
 \        “If you go parachuting, and your parachute doesn't open, and |
  `\        you friends are all watching you fall, I think a funny gag |
_o__)             would be to pretend you were swimming.” —Jack Handey |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web