On 04/26/2013 10:39 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Quoting Andrew Haley (2013-04-26 11:11:41)
> On 04/22/2013 11:01 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> The eclipse PTP project that I package is starting to ship an executable in one
of its plugins. The executable is packed into a jar file. This prevents debuginfo
creation for the executable.
>> I started taking a look at how this might be handled elsewhere and found:
13327 Defl:X 3624 73% 02-13-2013 23:21 326488c7 os/linux/x86_64/libpty.so 23720
Defl:X 7151 70% 02-13-2013 23:21 c26c2c94 os/linux/x86_64/libspawner.so
>> but no debuginfo package.
>> Thoughts, comments?
> This is pretty obviously a breach of packaging guidelines. We shouldn't be
hiding DSOs in archives.
Hmm, I am not aware of any guideline touching this topic (perhaps because it's not
that common). But from practical perspective these jars are extremely practical because
they don't have to deal with JNI file locations and similar things which ten to be
I don't understand your point. It's a package, so the JNI file location is
fixed. What can be variable?
I don't consider this approach hiding, but we could surely
improve the tooling support for it.
It surely is. One of the things that packaging does is scour packages for
DSOs to make sure that the debuginfo is present. By putting the package in
a DSO we've hidden it from the package.
WRT original question, I am not sure how to proceed. Even if you
generate debuginfo packages I have to wonder how easy will it be to use in a debugger?
Well, quite. The right thing to do is not to hide the DSOs. Then everything
will just work. The alternative is to put the debuginfo in the jar with the
DSO, but IMO we should not be considering this option.