On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 02:16:51PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:11:28PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:04:24PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > > Even if debcheck learnt about the debian-debug archive, I'd still > > > > consider a package from the main archive having Suggests to a package > > > > from the debug archive something weird. > > > > > > So are you suggesting I move pari-gp-dbgsym back to main ? Would the > > > FTP masters allow that ? (pari-gp-dbgsym used to be named pari-gp-dbg > > > and be in main). > > > > Actually, I'd suggest you just drop that Suggest. What usefulness is it > > bringing anyway to your average user, suggesting them to intsall debug > > symbols? Is it something so common for this package to have to debug > > its activity? > > This package suggest to install _another_ package debug symbol, not its > own. > > pari-gp2c includes a script gp2c-dbg that allows to debug GP programs with > gdb. For gdb to be able to display usable information, > pari-gp-dbgsym is needed.
If you want a precedent, gdb Recommends libc-dbg for similar reason. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
