On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 01:50:21PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > I don't have a strong opinion on whether ddebs should be documented in > > policy, but I certainly don't agree with requiring dpkg to understand them > > as a prerequisite for implementing a general purpose, public archive for > > auto-stripped debugging symbols packages. There really is no reason for > > dpkg to treat these packages specially - a simple namespace convention > > imposed by Policy (i.e., reserving package names ending in "-ddeb" for use > > by this archive, which is what has been proposed) is sufficient, and > > requires no changes to dpkg, which is as it should be.
> > I think the .ddeb extension is a red herring. There ought not be anything > > new to teach dpkg, here; the only thing of relevance is that there not be > > namespace clashes between the ddebs and the debs in the main archive, and > > the filename is not relevant to that at all. > I understand your concern about this extension, but I do see it as a > merit. Of course, our tools must be aware of it. Except no one has *any intention* of making our tools "be aware" of this extension. This is a different file name convention, with no other impact. > And apt should know -before updating or whatnot- that a package was > installed from a ddeb, if they are to share the base name. It was not proposed to have the packages share the base name, and doing so implies a much more onerous implementation in the package manager than we would otherwise need. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
