On Sat, 2017-07-01 at 16:10 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: [...] > Overall the changes look okay to me, with the note below on unstable > taken into account. > > I was curious about this change though: > > -Section: debug > -Priority: extra > > Should the -dbg packages not still be in the "debug" section?
Or metapackages? I just reverted to the previous metadata. > Is it intentional that there are still some dbgsym packages built by > src:linux? Specifically: > > hyperv-daemons-dbgsym | 4.9.30-2+deb9u2 | stable-new | amd64, i386 > libcpupower1-dbgsym | 4.9.30-2+deb9u2 | stable-new | amd64, arm64, > armel, armhf, i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x > linux-cpupower-dbgsym | 4.9.30-2+deb9u2 | stable-new | amd64, i386 > linux-kbuild-4.9-dbgsym | 4.9.30-2+deb9u2 | stable-new | amd64, arm64, > armel, armhf, i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x > linux-perf-4.9-dbgsym | 4.9.30-2+deb9u2 | stable-new | amd64, arm64, > armel, armhf, i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x > usbip-dbgsym | 2.0+4.9.30-2+deb9u2 | stable-new | amd64, arm64, > armel, armhf, i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x Yes, it is intentional that userland packages get automatic debug symbol packages. > > (We'll need a higher version in unstable, too, but I see 82 was uploaded > > and reached NEW already, so hopefully that'll be sorted out by the time > > the point release happens.) > > Well, it'll need to be. :-) To be entirely honest, I'd prefer to get the > unstable situation sorted before we fix stable. Looking at the NEW page > for the unstable upload, I can't imagine that there'll be any issues > getting it sorted quickly. That's now done. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Design a system any fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
