On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:17:55PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > First, the naming: > It is indeed us Ftpmasters who want them named .ddeb. For two reasons - > a simple one is that it makes the handling much easier, if you can match > on *.ddeb$. Another one is that they aren't "real" debs like .deb. They > aren't meant for normal user consumption, but only for special > situations. For most users possibly completly automated and > transparently in the background. Seperating them as .ddeb helps making > it clear it is "something different than what you know from usual debian > packages". More so than a -debug in the name alone.
I don't think this is going to make it very clear to most users (what user is going to look at the filename?), and so far I don't see much reason that they should *be* different than .debs. > Also, ddebs should probably be defined in policy as not having > maintainer scripts. That's a reason to document them separately in policy, certainly, though I don't think this has been mentioned before now as a requirement? > Second the storage: > Archive side they will be put into the normal > directories right beside the source and other binaries from the > package. They will, however, not be exported to the public view of the > archive. Instead we will export a second directory which contains them, > which can then be mirrored seperately from mirrors that do want to have > them. Ehm... $ du -sh /srv/ftp.debian.org/ftp 410G /srv/ftp.debian.org/ftp $ df -h /srv/ftp.debian.org/ Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/cciss/c0d0p1 1.4T 1.1T 205G 85% / $ I would guess a full set of ddebs for unstable would take *at least* as much space as everything currently in the archive (oldstable - experimental). Are there plans for a hardware update on ftp-master to accomodate this sudden explosion in archive size? > Quantity of .ddebs: > Usually there should only be one .ddeb per source. Of course there are > always exceptions from the rule, so Maintainers may chose to have one > per binary package. This should only be taken when the size of the debug > package gets *huge* otherwise. It is hard to set definite numbers here, > but a 5mb package would surely not be a reason to split into two 2.5mb > ones. Why should this be the norm? - they're outside the main archive, so by default the Packages file size has no impact on the end user - much of the data in the Packages file should be irrelevant for ddebs (e.g., short auto-generated Package descriptions maybe?), so even at a 1:1 ratio the ddebs Packages file should be a quicker download for users - grouping by source package requires an extra indirection when figuring out the correct ddeb to download (file -> binary package -> source package) - "Maintainers may choose" opens up a broad range of cases where maintainers will have to manually implement this, particularly if they want ddebs to only be installed when the corresponding deb is installed; whereas with per-binary-package ddebs these cases could be automated. > The packages do also not need to be listed in debian/control, if they > follow the "one ddeb per source" general rule. If there are more of them > then they will need to be explicitly defined. Why should this be the case? -- 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
