Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > 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.
Or even just -dbg, since aren't the existing debug packages basically .ddebs, modulo bugs? > 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. Yes. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
