On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 05:42:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery 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.
> Or even just -dbg, since aren't the existing debug packages basically > .ddebs, modulo bugs? There are a few significant exceptions, such as libc6-dbg and libqt4-dbg, where the packages contain complete alternate debug builds of the libraries, /not/ detached debugging symbols. -- 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-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
