Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: >> Hello thread! /me puts on a package manager developer hat. >> >> Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread, it's huge. >> >> I think that diversion of debug packages out of current deb format is a >> completely wrong direction. Do you want to teach all tools that get some info >> about Debian packages that there is new 'ddeb' format packages? New .ddeb >> extension? For a what sake? > > Maybe you should spend some time and read the thread before stating such > things. > Neither dpkg nor apt, aptitude, apt-get and company need to know anything new. > They just work perfectly fine. The format is the same. Really? So, they are already first-class deb packages? According to the your first message in the whole thread, the answer is "no". I just re-read (for sure) the Joerg's mail back in this subthread, and my answer is still "no". I re-read some random mails and saw '.ddeb' here and there. And, what's then second (yours) and third (Roger's) letters ago directly in this thread speak about? You has put far more bigger and constructive answer (yet unsatisfiable) to Roger points, and my points is basically subset of them, re-explained from package manager PoV.
You also told that '...dpkg nor apt, aptitude, apt-get and company... just work perfectly fine'. What percent of their (and other tools') functionality did you test to say that? -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Maintainer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
