Bug#810327: perl: move to dbgsym packages

[Niels Thykier]

Niko Tyni:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 06:26:21AM +0000, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Niko Tyni:
>>> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 12:55:10PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
>>>> Package: perl
>>>> Version: 5.22.1-3
>>>> Severity: wishlist
>>>>
>>>> Detached debugging symbols are moving to a separate archive suite.
>>>>
>>>>  https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/12/msg00262.html
>>>>
>>>> We should migrate the symbols in perl-debug as well.
>>
>> Seems reasonable, though please note that you will probably want to keep
>> *non*-debug symbols in perl-debug (e.g. the perl debugger)
> 
> Somewhat confusingly, the perl debugger (= perl5db.pl) is in
> perl-modules-*. The thing in the perl-debug package is /usr/bin/debugperl,
> a perl binary compiled with -DDEBUGGING to enable assertions and the
> like. I was thinking that one would stay in perl-debug, yes.
> 

Indeed - that had me confused!

>>> So we can't use "automatic -dbgsym packages" as provided by debhelper,
>>> as we have a long standing tradition of trying to avoid needing perl
>>> (and hence debhelper) to build perl.
>>>
>> I am a bit curious about this.  AFAICT several essential packages (now?)
>> use debhelper (incl. coreutils, gzip, tar and dpkg - not to mention
>> glibc).  So I do not see how you can get to compile perl without needing
>> perl (before even getting to perl)?
>>
>> Not saying you should use debhelper; I just wanted to challenge the
>> statement a bit to see if it still makes sense. :)
> 
> Yeah, it's a good question that I was sort of avoiding :) It has come
> up every now and then, I think the last time was with #797106 (binNMU
> changelogs). So far we've sticked to tradition. See also
> 
>  http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/perl-maintainers/2012-January/002870.html
> 
> [...]
> 
> I note that the recent progress on perl cross build support has promise
> in this area and might well let us stop worrying about all this. However,
> it's new enough that I wouldn't really want to count on it quite yet.
>  

Thanks for the explanation.
  I suspect it might indeed be time to talk with the bootstrap people
about like you suggested in #797106 message 10.

>>> Seems like the easiest way to implement this manually is to put -dbgsym
>>> packages in debian/control just like regular ones.
>>
>> I think you might need to *omit* them from debian/control.
> 
> The options I see are either to go the dh_gencontrol way and create
> DEBIAN/control files for the -dbgsym packages on the fly, or hardcode
> them in the source debian/control file. The latter feels simpler to me.
> The most useful thing about the automatic creation part AFAICS is not
> having to change all the Debian source packages, which is not relevant
> for this case.
> 
> I don't see why having -dbgsym packages in debian/control couldn't work,
> unless there are some restrictions about them not listed in some part
> of the .changes file (maybe Binary:) or something like that?
> 

I don't remember if its absence from d/control is required for it ending
in the proper archive.  I'll punt that to Ansgar. :)

Thanks,
~Niels


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/perl-maintainers/attachments/20160415/72b01326/attachment.sig>