-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marcus Rueckert schreef: | On 2008-02-13 21:04:41 +0200, Alexey Eremenko wrote: |> I would like discuss a new idea: releasing openSUSE Alpha CDs/DVDs |> with debuginfo/symbols, so people will install that by default. That |> may ease reproduction of crashes. BETAs/RC/Final don't really need |> this. | | right. blueray or hd-dvd? or a 10dvd box? | | you have no idea how big the debug infos are. | | darix | Besides that the debug repo can be added very easy.... - -- Have a nice day, M9. Now, is the only time that exists. ~ OS: Linux 2.6.22.17-0.1-default x86_64 ~ Huidige gebruiker: monkey9@AMD64x2-sfn1 ~ Systeem: openSUSE 10.3 (x86_64) ~ KDE: 3.5.7 "release 72.6" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHs1w2X5/X5X6LpDgRAn3MAKCuO/KbcpUCuMY0tixw1G4zfq4WcQCdG0hj NA6MbR7oVhEaFCCisuuelQg= =ifKx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Hi, On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Marcus Rueckert wrote:

On 2008-02-13 21:04:41 +0200, Alexey Eremenko wrote:

...

I would like discuss a new idea: releasing openSUSE Alpha CDs/DVDs with debuginfo/symbols, so people will install that by default. That may ease reproduction of crashes. BETAs/RC/Final don't really need this.

right. blueray or hd-dvd? or a 10dvd box?

you have no idea how big the debug infos are.

The crux is: you would not be able to buy alpha media in shops. Currently we already refuse (with good reason) to dispose "normal" alpha DVD images to the mirror servers... On the other hand: Alpha/beta releases are much smaller than final releases (currently 12 GB vs. 73 GB, and alpha2 has 9 GB only because ppc is still missing). So my vote would be distributing additional debuginfo packages during alpha/beta phases, but NO LONGER distribute them for final releases. This would save 24 GB space on final. Viele Grüße Eberhard Mönkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)

Hi, On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Stephan Kulow wrote:

Am Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2008 schrieb Eberhard Moenkeberg:

...

So my vote would be distributing additional debuginfo packages during alpha/beta phases, but NO LONGER distribute them for final releases. This would save 24 GB space on final.

You say our final product doesn't have bugs worth tracking?

No. Your final products are in general known for their bugginess. This could be a marketing decision to assure your jobs. ;-)) What is the worth of final debuginfo packages vs. having them during the test phases? Maybe having them early gives a chance of leaving them later. Please try to gather statistics from bugzilla about how many bug reports against final needed the debuginfo packages, and relate that number against some number about the pre-final phases. F.e. you could internally prepare debuginfo packages in every phase, but publish them only before final. With reach of final, debuginfo packages could get delivered individually - only to those bugzilla reporters where necessary. Viele Grüße Eberhard Mönkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)

Hi, On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Stephan Kulow wrote:

Am Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2008 schrieb Eberhard Moenkeberg:

...

F.e. you could internally prepare debuginfo packages in every phase, but publish them only before final. With reach of final, debuginfo packages could get delivered individually - only to those bugzilla reporters where necessary.

We do publish them, but only in the factory tree. But if there is a problem with e.g. firefox in alpha2 you switch firefox and firefox-debuginfo to their factory versions and reproduce the bug. No big problem.

So it also should be no big problem for you to leave the debuginfo packages from final. Viele Grüße Eberhard Mönkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)

Hi, On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Marcus Rueckert wrote:

On 2008-02-13 23:42:45 +0100, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:

...

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Stephan Kulow wrote:

...

Am Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2008 schrieb Eberhard Moenkeberg:

...

...

...

F.e. you could internally prepare debuginfo packages in every phase, but publish them only before final. With reach of final, debuginfo packages could get delivered individually - only to those bugzilla reporters where necessary.

We do publish them, but only in the factory tree. But if there is a problem with e.g. firefox in alpha2 you switch firefox and firefox-debuginfo to their factory versions and reproduce the bug. No big problem.

So it also should be no big problem for you to leave the debuginfo packages from final.

of course it is a big problem. as factory can always introduce incompatible libraries. wouldnt be too helpful to fix bugs on the released product. and i doubt users would just upgrade to factory for reproducing a bug. or would you upgrade ftp.gwdg.de just because you found a bug on the system?

You could deliver the (relevant, not all) debuginfo packages only individually to bugzilla reporters after final, if and as necessary. My interest is that of a mirror admin only, but I am sure if you would let your marketing/statistics experts decide, they would do it "my way". Viele Grüße Eberhard Mönkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)

Hi, On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Marcus Rueckert wrote:

On 2008-02-14 00:05:35 +0100, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:

...

You could deliver the (relevant, not all) debuginfo packages only individually to bugzilla reporters after final, if and as necessary.

My interest is that of a mirror admin only, but I am sure if you would let your marketing/statistics experts decide, they would do it "my way".

that would be very short sighted. not all debugging happens for bugreporting to us. i often report bugs to upstream. but there it helps to have full backtraces without any "???" in them.

Just sending out debuginfo packages on request would make openSUSE a rather bad developer platform.

Not on request - on bug report if necessary. Any real statistics over bugzilla reports could clear the view here, I'm sure. I really guess that almost any individual delivering a bugzilla report would deliver it without initial access/use of a debuginfo package too, and solutions which need debuginfo package reports would still be achievable - just the reporting individual would need one additional step. Viele Grüße Eberhard Mönkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)

Hi, On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Marcus Rueckert wrote:

On 2008-02-14 00:37:33 +0100, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:

...

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Marcus Rueckert wrote:

...

On 2008-02-14 00:05:35 +0100, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:

...

...

...

You could deliver the (relevant, not all) debuginfo packages only individually to bugzilla reporters after final, if and as necessary.

My interest is that of a mirror admin only, but I am sure if you would let your marketing/statistics experts decide, they would do it "my way".

that would be very short sighted. not all debugging happens for bugreporting to us. i often report bugs to upstream. but there it helps to have full backtraces without any "???" in them.

Just sending out debuginfo packages on request would make openSUSE a rather bad developer platform.

Not on request - on bug report if necessary.

Any real statistics over bugzilla reports could clear the view here, I'm sure.

I really guess that almost any individual delivering a bugzilla report would deliver it without initial access/use of a debuginfo package too, and solutions which need debuginfo package reports would still be achievable - just the reporting individual would need one additional step.

and again how does the developer fit into your picture? he sits at home and debugs his app and wants the whole backtrace through all libs. should he open a bugreport to get the required packages?

Why not, for such rare cases? Again, I would like to see your decision depend on real statistics. Viele Grüße Eberhard Mönkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dominique Leuenberger schreef: | Hi, | |>>> On 2/14/2008 at 02:03, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote: |>> and again how does the developer fit into your picture? he sits at home |>> and debugs his app and wants the whole backtrace through all libs. |>> should he open a bugreport to get the required packages? |> Why not, for such rare cases? |> Again, I would like to see your decision depend on real statistics. | | I think that's quiet rude against people developping any application. It already happened to me creating a package, and my final product always crashed upoin start. So instead of just debugging the whole thing (including underlying libs) I would have to open a bug report and 'wait' for the debuginfo packages? So in plus putting some work on the staff for delivering packages for me to debug something which (for reasons) is not even part of the openSUSE distribution? | | In this specific case, I could just install the debug info packages I needed (and guess: I of course did not see from the very beginning which ones could be interesting... so adding one after another, so alternaively requesting one after another) and the error finally lied in a lib, and not in the product I packaged... lbrary fixed, patch submitted upstream and everything is fine... | | I think the debuginfo packages need to be available on the download system, easy accessible. For the final product and for factory. (Factory for testing and good bugreporting against the distro, on final product for bugtracking against other products). | | Dominique | To reduce the remarkable amount of space, especialy when measured at all the mirrors, used by a filesystem that hardly anyone uses, but *is* nessesary for the occasion, by putting this on one server, apart from the install- and update-sources, is far the best idea thinkable. The ones who need it will find it, that is for sure. A 'debugserver", with pkgs from all maintained systems, is not such a bad idea. - -- Have a nice day, M9. Now, is the only time that exists. ~ OS: Linux 2.6.22.17-0.1-default x86_64 ~ Huidige gebruiker: monkey9@AMD64x2-sfn1 ~ Systeem: openSUSE 10.3 (x86_64) ~ KDE: 3.5.7 "release 72.6" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHtAxZX5/X5X6LpDgRAq0RAKCX+j8dGp3rnwfMYYU8P0fKkD9gEwCgoU+1 Cn+VBc9+MJBjT9iQz8tmNAQ= =G3i/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Carlos E. R. wrote:

Couldn't the debug packages be put on a different server or path, one that is not normally mirrored?

I have reported bugs for final for which I needed the debug packages. And sometimes I needed the debug packages some months after the final was released, so there were no debug rpms (created, but not published). It would be good if those were available, too: but they were not because they didn't want to overload the mirrors. Therefore: put them out of mirrors reach.

+1

Would that be possible?

-- Regards, Andreas Vetter Fakultaet fuer Physik und Astronomie Universitaet Wuerzburg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Thursday 2008-02-14 at 00:42 +0100, Marcus Rueckert wrote:

and again how does the developer fit into your picture? he sits at home and debugs his app and wants the whole backtrace through all libs. should he open a bugreport to get the required packages?

A very wild idea - I'm sleepy - would it be possible to have our systems without debug info, but have a server at Novell convert the backtraces symbols to readable log? I don't know if I make sense, maybe it doesn't exist, but could such a thing be designed? (I'm off to bed and duck :-) ) - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHs6d2tTMYHG2NR9URAspcAJ925H4DHzgau0/st7ArwoudA5ErMgCeLZ0x YTZBjymOQseZUZrUItwp7Fc= =IHDA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org