• debcheck and Suggests dbgsym packages

    From Bill Allombert@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 23 12:00:02 2020
    Dear QA team,

    The webpage
    https://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=stable&package=gp2c
    say
    "Package has a Suggests on pari-gp-dbgsym which cannot be satisfied on amd64"

    However pari-gp-dbgsym exists in buster-debug

    So is it a debcheck bug or something that can be fixed in the package ?

    Cheers,
    --
    Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

    Imagine a large red swirl here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Wise@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 23 13:20:01 2020
    On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:56 AM Bill Allombert wrote:

    "Package has a Suggests on pari-gp-dbgsym which cannot be satisfied on amd64"

    However pari-gp-dbgsym exists in buster-debug

    So is it a debcheck bug or something that can be fixed in the package ?

    It is a bug in debcheck, it does not yet know about the debian-debug archive.

    --
    bye,
    pabs

    https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Allombert@21:1/5 to Paul Wise on Sat May 23 13:40:02 2020
    On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:15:14AM +0000, Paul Wise wrote:
    On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:56 AM Bill Allombert wrote:

    "Package has a Suggests on pari-gp-dbgsym which cannot be satisfied on amd64"

    However pari-gp-dbgsym exists in buster-debug

    So is it a debcheck bug or something that can be fixed in the package ?

    It is a bug in debcheck, it does not yet know about the debian-debug archive.

    Thanks, I will ignore it for the time begin then.

    Cheers,
    --
    Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

    Imagine a large red swirl here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mattia Rizzolo@21:1/5 to Paul Wise on Sun May 24 11:50:02 2020
    On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:15:14AM +0000, Paul Wise wrote:
    On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:56 AM Bill Allombert wrote:

    "Package has a Suggests on pari-gp-dbgsym which cannot be satisfied on amd64"

    However pari-gp-dbgsym exists in buster-debug

    So is it a debcheck bug or something that can be fixed in the package ?

    It is a bug in debcheck, it does not yet know about the debian-debug archive.

    Well, I'd argue that the message is correct.

    The Policy allows Suggests against non-existing packages, so the
    situation is alright, but you are in fact suggestion a package that is
    outside of the "main" debian archive.
    Even if debcheck learnt about the debian-debug archive, I'd still
    consider a package from the main archive having Suggests to a package
    from the debug archive something weird.

    --
    regards,
    Mattia Rizzolo

    GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
    More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
    Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEi3hoeGwz5cZMTQpICBa54Yx2K60FAl7KQTAACgkQCBa54Yx2 K61QchAAllelOd7fEW9pfAnwvt+PZDW4E6578Y59IKpSoAiCot97sJH+CHgnTSsc DrYVc8F+RIii1Silo8CdKtfIxrOEpYzxCY/tt2EeDLTIzWjZmJBzHCuMt7RUTwyo qme7eUsZZf87QpkIcSuB1pfLtjKDZMkXIKoarciO+EFgWt3vLDSLdu7SY5uUPulD RN75fvz0Hc0ty2ddj+wQQustUvR8NmVRsxHoUnATk4UlcOnIpew5T9iUdZR5ASkI WcKnedi4bFweUNhkiUj8bK9Bsa1vE4cRoNAzC1IpwXKraCCpax+yGzYujS0/Aqf4 aSqOlscizHQcN8pkXkx4POvVvMUCTvGT2vXU2cVSvNwQYfWUQ781wNQDY/4SKR8x sea+Er11N42itb2qviMcEGSICDglkT+8xufrnArU9z2YRMOV1kYezJt3uaVSBmgg lS/6Q3QGlFUx7apUJFiIlyB7paVmxuvYbRN5zz4FVEroD8LwUvLZO8NuNhbkIcDe 1o4ww47Ur3v+fZ+K/COlr3jibeVoKrfAq3ogdLxiYNqX+/gwBMW
  • From Bill Allombert@21:1/5 to Mattia Rizzolo on Sun May 24 12:10:02 2020
    On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:41:07AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
    On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:15:14AM +0000, Paul Wise wrote:
    On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:56 AM Bill Allombert wrote:

    "Package has a Suggests on pari-gp-dbgsym which cannot be satisfied on amd64"

    However pari-gp-dbgsym exists in buster-debug

    So is it a debcheck bug or something that can be fixed in the package ?

    It is a bug in debcheck, it does not yet know about the debian-debug archive.

    Well, I'd argue that the message is correct.

    The Policy allows Suggests against non-existing packages, so the
    situation is alright, but you are in fact suggestion a package that is outside of the "main" debian archive.

    The debug version of main is still main at least as far as the DFSG is concerned.

    Even if debcheck learnt about the debian-debug archive, I'd still
    consider a package from the main archive having Suggests to a package
    from the debug archive something weird.

    So are you suggesting I move pari-gp-dbgsym back to main ? Would the
    FTP masters allow that ? (pari-gp-dbgsym used to be named pari-gp-dbg
    and be in main).

    Cheers,
    --
    Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

    Imagine a large red swirl here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mattia Rizzolo@21:1/5 to Bill Allombert on Sun May 24 12:20:02 2020
    On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:04:24PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
    Even if debcheck learnt about the debian-debug archive, I'd still
    consider a package from the main archive having Suggests to a package
    from the debug archive something weird.

    So are you suggesting I move pari-gp-dbgsym back to main ? Would the
    FTP masters allow that ? (pari-gp-dbgsym used to be named pari-gp-dbg
    and be in main).

    Actually, I'd suggest you just drop that Suggest. What usefulness is it bringing anyway to your average user, suggesting them to intsall debug
    symbols? Is it something so common for this package to have to debug
    its activity?

    --
    regards,
    Mattia Rizzolo

    GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
    More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
    Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEi3hoeGwz5cZMTQpICBa54Yx2K60FAl7KSE4ACgkQCBa54Yx2 K62PixAAnPafZHmHX8oI4+W3K3oxqIlGMOLuwBif0gtp04maVd9eMcjPZBdqTlcb ctRO5ci+iiObeyjzHINNPtZ1tDnTFh4uXNkTunDc2xXL1eUsG31DlRknsTii1Cmw vB6PUOXkSn8gBnjjhEc+bcsEHkgvbNNtYtCGs7GB+AkUkf0RpSpFG+9H8hgzIgPY 8msHUphCEPBw2Mvv895r6xmY1dtCrffoDt3hFF1vYMkFpAr6RfPq0D2J9Cb1y0m7 f8ohNJ7zox2KHipycU6lOWXTBPRkL6QujlUQk+dt3/1jhLRyEqaItH/rfe3vhLP+ M9+h1cBGP70AO7o2pZ2qaoHHE8eGvfYEd7aUAuyKcIWRDddx8Hsz3HVfSyWmJkDY qrMMF79OoysHfErv5dpHSU7+Od4vshM3dVsuMKRpDks0LMddNWniuqs6/mGf7Z3P DenRXt+saESU0+Q1AfpI9snd/WBjJeFgb4A9+ele8n1JUu7C61/LBJh2eWHmglNE /l0gplnqG86dE0+/hvxb7tUGhAbPX/XUilIGcoRrr+mwtLnRflS
  • From Bill Allombert@21:1/5 to Mattia Rizzolo on Sun May 24 14:20:01 2020
    On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:11:28PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
    On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:04:24PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
    Even if debcheck learnt about the debian-debug archive, I'd still consider a package from the main archive having Suggests to a package from the debug archive something weird.

    So are you suggesting I move pari-gp-dbgsym back to main ? Would the
    FTP masters allow that ? (pari-gp-dbgsym used to be named pari-gp-dbg
    and be in main).

    Actually, I'd suggest you just drop that Suggest. What usefulness is it bringing anyway to your average user, suggesting them to intsall debug symbols? Is it something so common for this package to have to debug
    its activity?

    This package suggest to install _another_ package debug symbol, not its
    own.

    pari-gp2c includes a script gp2c-dbg that allows to debug GP programs with
    gdb. For gdb to be able to display usable information,
    pari-gp-dbgsym is needed.

    Cheers,
    --
    Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

    Imagine a large red swirl here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Allombert@21:1/5 to Bill Allombert on Tue May 26 15:10:01 2020
    On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 02:16:51PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
    On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:11:28PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
    On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:04:24PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
    Even if debcheck learnt about the debian-debug archive, I'd still consider a package from the main archive having Suggests to a package from the debug archive something weird.

    So are you suggesting I move pari-gp-dbgsym back to main ? Would the
    FTP masters allow that ? (pari-gp-dbgsym used to be named pari-gp-dbg and be in main).

    Actually, I'd suggest you just drop that Suggest. What usefulness is it bringing anyway to your average user, suggesting them to intsall debug symbols? Is it something so common for this package to have to debug
    its activity?

    This package suggest to install _another_ package debug symbol, not its
    own.

    pari-gp2c includes a script gp2c-dbg that allows to debug GP programs with gdb. For gdb to be able to display usable information,
    pari-gp-dbgsym is needed.

    If you want a precedent, gdb Recommends libc-dbg for similar reason.

    Cheers,
    --
    Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

    Imagine a large red swirl here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mattia Rizzolo@21:1/5 to Bill Allombert on Tue May 26 18:20:02 2020
    On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 03:06:23PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
    Actually, I'd suggest you just drop that Suggest. What usefulness is it bringing anyway to your average user, suggesting them to intsall debug symbols? Is it something so common for this package to have to debug
    its activity?

    This package suggest to install _another_ package debug symbol, not its own.

    pari-gp2c includes a script gp2c-dbg that allows to debug GP programs with gdb. For gdb to be able to display usable information,
    pari-gp-dbgsym is needed.

    Oh, I see what you mean now.

    Then, I'd argue that that's one valid case for the package to stay in
    the main archive instead. I.e. use a manually build -dbg package.

    But this is just my own opinion, I don't think there is anything
    resembling a rule on matters regarding debug packages.

    --
    regards,
    Mattia Rizzolo

    GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
    More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
    Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEi3hoeGwz5cZMTQpICBa54Yx2K60FAl7NQSwACgkQCBa54Yx2 K636zBAAvOmQLRyP6q/7O9v8a+tnQbSm5UXrch7s933YDh1xZkIoZndLARt22hyT X3eW/RkoSPnaH+C1dt2T8Nnes0a8VQumu/tnWHmS0Kn8tMAgX3uZqocLwZBnAnBv EbEM0A1uknIVHJAXYgY+Ov59KS2Imp2nSQM1kh3KR6YCoMPjMzNMqcvrJLwlLQrt PqOm6nRMR5BgeGOB5erRTaeuG0JScNbyA8/UClzQtdcDYZUeNY+dy/tYcbV4W3ll wfTDzb2+n9mCRmFES6r5HxpkgcvwVwTqWWzjQ291/tr/GcdCp3QV91b+lJATJuEJ +I+tgwqiuL5aUrSbBr87UOR3wEXliEgSpm/uQbDiRWx2Rri8SQl+cPEgE45ZAWSH a/XjUUQMws6yVcN2Q8miwvp2Y5I6GJvuDMyFSa5vI1L/pbrro1tAn4xBlaz+QzEs HNqsf8kf9p9GGr6eg1qHxnKiIt0e6AUKTgu0mObMsUrTLLeLonUf8ArsMpBtS31N Sv4OzAbErknnkpuartZP64ghFtsr1sY2R8ZO+i0AgiOtNECtMLN
  • From Paul Wise@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 27 03:10:02 2020
    On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:18 PM Mattia Rizzolo wrote:

    Then, I'd argue that that's one valid case for the package to stay in
    the main archive instead. I.e. use a manually build -dbg package.

    But this is just my own opinion, I don't think there is anything
    resembling a rule on matters regarding debug packages.

    Here is another opinion :)

    I don't think this is special enough to warrant keeping the debug
    symbols in the main archive.

    --
    bye,
    pabs

    https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)