bug#37527: [PATCH] Install C source code for for debugging help

[Paul Eggert]

On 10/4/19 2:20 AM, Michael Albinus wrote:

> I know that the command installs the emacs-debuginfo package. I haven't
> found a command, which installs the emacs-debugsource package
> only. Could you please help me here?

Sorry, as far as I know there isn't a convenient way to do it. Such a command 
was suggested here:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1494628#c9

but as far as I know it was never implemented. Presumably one can do it by 
installing the debugsource packages by hand (e.g., see 
<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/StackTraces> and look for "minimal set" and for 
"manually") but I haven't done this.

> > Also, on Fedora at least, the debugsource packages are regularly
> > out-of-sync with the main packages distributed by the Fedora servers,
> > so the suggested approach is unreliable when Emacs is patched. This is
> > worth mentioning as well.
>
> That I don't understand completely. Aren't the debug* packages intended
> to be realeased under the same name+version as the binary packages? And
> shouldn't they be in sync then?

They should be in sync, but in practice for me they have not been. There can be 
nontrivial delay between the installation of an executable package and the 
installation of the corresponding debuginfo/debugsource packages. I don't know 
why this is. Possibly it has something to do with the DNF configuration files (I 
haven't changed mine, as far as I can recall). FWIW, I don't currently have a 
mismatch now (I just checked).

I update by running the command 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-debuginfo update', by 
the way. Which reminds me, we should put into our instructions that one must 
enable the debuginfo repo, as that's not the default.

> The main intention of this discussion is to have access to Emacs C
> sources via main distributions. Whatever we change in Emacs releases
> doesn't matter; it counts only what the major distributions
> offer.

I don't follow this point. If we install a new file foo.el the major 
distributions will pick that up automatically. They will also pick it up if we 
install a new file foo.c. It's just a file.

> Shouldn't we contact them (at least Debian-based and Red
> Hat-based distributions), and ask the maintainers what they would expect
> from us to make access to the C sources more simple? And maybe they have
> also descriptions, which fit better than what I have compiled.

My impression is that it will be a hassle for us to track all the major 
distributions and how they do it, since they don't do it in the same way and 
they occasionally change what they do. Plus, we'll have to tell people to modify 
their DNF configurations (or similar configurations for other distros). This 
sounds like quite a pain for everyone concerned.