On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 06:06:46PM +0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> Second was generated also with script. Much longer one with some bugs in
> it. I run it on list of all packages available for my system (12.04
> 'precise' + set of PPAs) and got huge amount of packages without -dbgsym
> But as working with ~2500 packages is hard and may not have sense I
> decided to run this script against ubuntu-meta seeds for amd64 platform.
> Resulting list is very short:
> All those packages contain host binaries, none of them is using
> debhelper (which is requirement to get -dbgsym package built in
> automatic way). Are there plans to have -dbgsym coverage for standard
> system? If yes, then I will report bugs against those packages.
Full system coverage is desirable, but it's also desirable to not have to
maintain completely separate packaging from Debian for these - which is what
is implied if we fix them to use debhelper. So I think bug reports are
unlikely to be actioned.
We're trying to phase this package out completely, and the only binary it
ships is acpi_fakekey, which we know doesn't work reliably for a couple of
years now due to kernel changes. I don't think anyone is ever going to need
debugging symbols for this in practice, so it's not worth fixing.
Some of these packages do use debhelper but fail to call dh_strip, or have
maintainers in Debian who would probably accept patches to switch the
packaging to use debhelper if it was proposed (bzip2, rsync). For those,
it's probably worth submitting bugs directly upstream to Debian.
(I don't think any of these would warrant a freeze exception for 12.04, so
there's not really a hurry to get them into Ubuntu and the work should be
done upstream first.)