FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-04-2009, 02:25 AM
Theodore Tso
 
Default -dbg packages; are they actually useful?

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:12:22PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> I'm looking at my local mirror (slowly) update at the moment, and I've
> got to wondering: are the large -dbg packages actually really useful
> to anybody? I can't imagine that more than a handful of users ever
> install (to pick an example) the amarok-dbg packages, but we have
> multiple copies of a 70MB-plus .deb taking up mirror space and
> bandwidth. I can understand this for library packages, maybe, but for
> applications?

There are people working on ways of compressing the debuginfo
information, and I've been told they might have results within a
couple of months. Part of the problem is that depending on how the
package is built, the -dbg packages can be huge, so it makes the
cost/benefit ratio somewhat painful.

If the -dbg files were more like these sizes:

224 e2fslibs-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb 52 libss2-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb
452 e2fsprogs-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb 48 libuuid1-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb
76 libblkid1-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb 48 uuid-runtime-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb
44 libcomerr2-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb

I doubt there's be too much concern....

- Ted


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-04-2009, 04:17 AM
Steve Langasek
 
Default -dbg packages; are they actually useful?

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:25:06PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:

> > I'm looking at my local mirror (slowly) update at the moment, and I've
> > got to wondering: are the large -dbg packages actually really useful
> > to anybody? I can't imagine that more than a handful of users ever
> > install (to pick an example) the amarok-dbg packages, but we have
> > multiple copies of a 70MB-plus .deb taking up mirror space and
> > bandwidth. I can understand this for library packages, maybe, but for
> > applications?

> There are people working on ways of compressing the debuginfo
> information, and I've been told they might have results within a
> couple of months. Part of the problem is that depending on how the
> package is built, the -dbg packages can be huge, so it makes the
> cost/benefit ratio somewhat painful.

> If the -dbg files were more like these sizes:

> 224 e2fslibs-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb 52 libss2-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb
> 452 e2fsprogs-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb 48 libuuid1-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb
> 76 libblkid1-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb 48 uuid-runtime-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb
> 44 libcomerr2-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb

> I doubt there's be too much concern....

Remaining concerns:

- each of these dbg packages requires manual modification to the source
package (incl. adding the package to debian/control)
- each has to go through the NEW queue
- each takes up space afterwards in the Packages file

Much better if these can be generated centrally as part of the builds.

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-04-2009, 04:28 AM
Paul Wise
 
Default -dbg packages; are they actually useful?

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:

>> If the -dbg files were more like these sizes:
>
...
>
>> I doubt there's be too much concern....
>
> Remaining concerns:
>
> - each of these dbg packages requires manual modification to the source
> *package (incl. adding the package to debian/control)
> - each has to go through the NEW queue
> - each takes up space afterwards in the Packages file
>
> Much better if these can be generated centrally as part of the builds.

Agreed.

To be more useful, this would require that the ftpmaster team allow
source-only uploads or at least always rebuild binary packages
provided by maintainers on the buildds (where the build process can be
more easily controlled).

ftpmasters, what is your current position on source-only uploads or
throwing away maintainer-built debs?

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-04-2009, 05:12 AM
Christian Perrier
 
Default -dbg packages; are they actually useful?

Quoting Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org):

> symbols. If there's a will to get that done in Debian now, I will
> definitely be happy to ditch the samba-dbg package for one.


I support my co-maintainer on that..:-)

One should note that samba-dbg is sometimes used and already allowed
tracking down some segfault bugs, which are pretty common with samba
packages as smbd panics trigger a mail to root that recommends sending
a bug report...if the panic is reproducible in some way.

But, indeed, learning about the system that's in Ubuntu is great.

By coincidence, this is time for GSOC proposals. Wouldn't be something
like "implement a backtrace anaylysing system similar to Ubuntu's"
something that could be useful.

Alternative: "implement ddebs.debian.org"
 
Old 03-04-2009, 09:03 AM
Tzafrir Cohen
 
Default -dbg packages; are they actually useful?

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:17:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:

> Remaining concerns:
>
> - each of these dbg packages requires manual modification to the source
> package (incl. adding the package to debian/control)
> - each has to go through the NEW queue
> - each takes up space afterwards in the Packages file
>
> Much better if these can be generated centrally as part of the builds.

What about backports?

What about locally-built packages?

("Sorry, we can't help you debug your probelem until you ditch that
package you built and build from source like Real Men should").

In addition to that: core dumps are most useful in the system where they
were dumped. But getting a trace requires installing gdb. Should it be
possible to get the backtracing capabilities of gdb in a smaller
package?

BTW: I only installed a -symdbg (debug.debian.nbet) package one on a
system of mine. At next upgrade of the original package I had to
manually remove that package. -dbg package simply got upgraded.

--
Tzafrir Cohen | tzafrir@jabber.org | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's
tzafrir@cohens.org.il | | best
ICQ# 16849754 | | friend


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-04-2009, 10:16 AM
Goswin von Brederlow
 
Default -dbg packages; are they actually useful?

Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes:

> Hey folks,
>
> I'm looking at my local mirror (slowly) update at the moment, and I've
> got to wondering: are the large -dbg packages actually really useful
> to anybody? I can't imagine that more than a handful of users ever
> install (to pick an example) the amarok-dbg packages, but we have
> multiple copies of a 70MB-plus .deb taking up mirror space and
> bandwidth. I can understand this for library packages, maybe, but for
> applications?
>
> Thoughts?

I think the debug packages are quite usefull. Just not every day or
everyone.

For a local mirror I would totaly filter out all the -dbg packages. If
the need arises you can always fetch them from debian or alter the
filter to allow some in.

The problem is that when you need the -dbg package then it has to be
available. They can not be build after for example you (as maintainer)
recieved a core dump. So for Debian they need to be around.

MfG
Goswin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-04-2009, 10:41 AM
Philipp Kern
 
Default -dbg packages; are they actually useful?

On 2009-03-04, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
[snip]
>> What I really wish for is the ability to have a relatively centralized
>> location where the symbols from every single package ended up that was
>> separate from the normal mirrors.
> Yes, absolutely. Doing this right, though, requires integration with the
> buildd network, so that the debugging symbols can be extracted as part of
> the official build instead of being lossily reconstructed after the fact.

I'd like to see input from a ftpmaster here. Let's hope that we see a
new host with large storage soon. I've got 10G/suite/arch quoted from
Martin Pitt as an upper bound[*] based on his observations on Ubuntu.
As we want a data.debian.org anyway, where people could fetch large stuff
fast it would make sense IMHO to put those debug packages there too.
dak could easily extract it from the changes and send it to the other host
for serving, or they could be transmitted separately.

I'd be all open to try this on a few arches on the official buildd net.
If the experiment proves successful we could drop the -dbg packages
to save space on the normal archive mirrors.

>From my own observation I found the apport retracting in Launchpad
pretty helpful as you get meaningful stack traces without user
intervention. On the other hand integrating that is an even bigger beast.

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
[*] The real count currently looks more like 5G/release/arch, but this might
not be full coverage due to hickups of the cronjob.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-04-2009, 11:35 AM
Bastien ROUCARIES
 
Default -dbg packages; are they actually useful?

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org> wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org):
>
>> symbols. *If there's a will to get that done in Debian now, I will
>> definitely be happy to ditch the samba-dbg package for one.
>
>
> I support my co-maintainer on that..:-)
>
> One should note that samba-dbg is sometimes used and already allowed
> tracking down some segfault bugs, which are pretty common with samba
> packages as smbd panics trigger a mail to root that recommends sending
> a bug report...if the panic is reproducible in some way.
>
> But, indeed, learning about the system that's in Ubuntu is great.
>
> By coincidence, this is time for GSOC proposals. Wouldn't be something
> like "implement a backtrace anaylysing system similar to Ubuntu's"
> something that could be useful.

They are already bug 508585 please cc And improve it. But I agree
it will be nice to have it for next realease.

> Alternative: "implement ddebs.debian.org"

Yes and for all arch. Sparc is really an interesting arch particularly
when you use floatting point.

Regards

Bastien


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-04-2009, 11:45 AM
Bastien ROUCARIES
 
Default -dbg packages; are they actually useful?

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:25:06PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
>> > I'm looking at my local mirror (slowly) update at the moment, and I've
>> > got to wondering: are the large -dbg packages actually really useful
>> > to anybody? I can't imagine that more than a handful of users ever
>> > install (to pick an example) the amarok-dbg packages, but we have
>> > multiple copies of a 70MB-plus .deb taking up mirror space and
>> > bandwidth. I can understand this for library packages, maybe, but for
>> > applications?
>
>> There are people working on ways of compressing the debuginfo
>> information, and I've been told they might have results within a
>> couple of months. *Part of the problem is that depending on how the
>> package is built, the -dbg packages can be huge, so it makes the
>> cost/benefit ratio somewhat painful.
>
>> If the -dbg files were more like these sizes:
>
>> 224 e2fslibs-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb * * 52 libss2-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb
>> 452 e2fsprogs-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb * *48 libuuid1-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb
>> *76 libblkid1-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb * *48 uuid-runtime-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb
>> *44 libcomerr2-dbg_1.41.3-1_i386.deb
>
>> I doubt there's be too much concern....
>
> Remaining concerns:
>
> - each of these dbg packages requires manual modification to the source
> *package (incl. adding the package to debian/control)
> - each has to go through the NEW queue
> - each takes up space afterwards in the Packages file
>
> Much better if these can be generated centrally as part of the builds.

Yes like for instance http://debug.debian.net/ limited unfortunatly to
i386 and not up to date,
see also #508585. It is really important for us in order to get nice
bactrace. I maintain for instance imagemagick and it will be really
nice to ask user to do an apt-get debug imagemagick in order to get a
reliable backtrace. Moreover this operation should not be priveligied,
simple joe user should be able to use debug package.

Moreover, apt-get debugdepend imagemagick should also include debug
package for dependancies of imagemagick in case of crash in library
used by imagemagick.

And a script like ddebug could ease user report. For instance the user
will do ddebug imagemagick
and the script will get a backstrace and generate a bug report.

Regards

Bastien


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-05-2009, 02:23 AM
Steve Langasek
 
Default -dbg packages; are they actually useful?

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 01:45:38PM +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:

> > Remaining concerns:

> > - each of these dbg packages requires manual modification to the source
> > *package (incl. adding the package to debian/control)
> > - each has to go through the NEW queue
> > - each takes up space afterwards in the Packages file

> > Much better if these can be generated centrally as part of the builds.

> Yes like for instance http://debug.debian.net/ limited unfortunatly to
> i386 and not up to date,

And also inherently unreliable, because these symbols are from different
builds than the main binary packages. Have you run into many problems of
this sort, where the symbols don't actually match up with the packages in
the archive?

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:04 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org