On Sat, Aug 08 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 08 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> I've documented the .ddeb format in the wiki page [1] ("DDeb Format",
>>> which is short since the format is basically that of .debs). Do we
>>> really need this to be documented in policy?
>>
>> Not if that is all that is. So ddebs are just -dbg packages
>> renamed to foo_version_arch.ddeb (you do not need ddeb in the name
>> since they are called .ddebs.)
>
> dpkg doesn't know about filenames AFAICS. So you can't coinstall
> foo_1.0-1_i386.deb and foo_1.0-1_i386.ddeb, right? So we do want the
> -ddeb suffix.
If we are going to enshrine ddebs into policy, we might as well
teach dpkg about ddebs.
>
>> The wiki does not seem to impose any additional rules on the
>> ddebs (I assume that all the restrictions on a normal package still
>> apply).
> Right.
So why are we creating a whole new class of packages which dpkg
does not know about, and which are substantially the same as the
current -dbg packages? Is it to just reduce debian/control file bloat?
Or to create debug packages whether or not the maintainer cooperates?
The result appears to be to create a package automagically (the
details appear fuzzy to me, perhaps I have not been paying attention),
and add things to changes files even when the package is unknown to
debian/control, so it is uploaded and processed by the archive scripts.
All this seems to require large amounts of infrastructure work,
why not add dpkg to the set of ddeb aware tools?
>> Seems like then all that is needed is to build the package as
>> normal, and after the dpkg invocation to build the package, one just
>> adds a call to mv. This is simple.
>
> You can build a .ddeb manually, yes. However for some cases
> (e.g. packages using debhelper and building ELF binaries) a .ddeb will
> be automatically created (if none is created manually) and detached
> debugging symbols will be put there. I'll try to automatize other
> languages too, so that having full archive coverage is as simpler as
> possible.
I don't use helper packages, including debhelper. So far, policy
has not required me to, so if you want to put anything about ddebs in
policy, there should be a route for people not using debhelper to
contribute to debug packages in Debian, and not be relegated to the
status of second class packages.
manoj
--
Tom's hungry, time to eat lunch.
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
