On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.
Well, of we are top carve out a namespace in policy, it also
makes sense if we define whay such packages ought to contain as
well. Having a namespace carved out for packages with only detached
debugging symbols (and with the normal policy rules on regular
packages -- copyright, changelog, etc).
manoj
--
The wise shepherd never trusts his flock to a smiling wolf.
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
