Debug packages vs. @shell annotation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Debug packages vs. @shell annotation

Christian Weisgerber
I tried to add a debug package for shells/bash, but the result would
only contain debug data for some loadable modules and skip the actual
bash binary.

Oh, of course.  It is marked @shell and not @bin in the PLIST.

We could change OpenBSD/PackingElement.pm to add @shell to the
binary types... but then does a shell have to be a binary?  psh
from shells/perlsh clearly isn't.

So... uh?

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debug packages vs. @shell annotation

Marc Espie-2
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:39:51PM +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

> I tried to add a debug package for shells/bash, but the result would
> only contain debug data for some loadable modules and skip the actual
> bash binary.
>
> Oh, of course.  It is marked @shell and not @bin in the PLIST.
>
> We could change OpenBSD/PackingElement.pm to add @shell to the
> binary types... but then does a shell have to be a binary?  psh
> from shells/perlsh clearly isn't.
>
> So... uh?

As a hack, you could install bash twice, as a hardlink annotated with @bin ?

Otherwise, it could be written and recognized as a supplementary annotation,
like @comment no checksum.