On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:05:22 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I would rather add it as a recommended practice in policy, with a >> note that it will become a should/must as we get better coverage, and >> _also_ provide examples of what maintainers need to do to create >> separate debugging symbol packages in an informative footnote. > Well, we've made more than ~300 packages insta-buggy with policy > changes before. It's not insta-rc-buggy. OTOH, I don't really care; > 300 bug reports could be mass-filed w/o it being a "should" in policy. If I have inadvertently done so in the past, I feel the need to apologize, but my past mistakes do not condone me making the same errors again. > Note that I've already written some documentation for > developers-reference in #420540. Thanks. Now that we have released Etch, I need to be getting back at updating policy again, there are a number of issues sitting on my TODO list. > The policy-relevant bits are that we use > /usr/lib/debug/<path-to-object>, that the files should not be > executable (possibly a common mistake since objcopy preserves > executable bits IIRC), and that the package names end in -dbg and the > debug packages depend on an equal version of the package they provide > debugging symbols for. Actually, the whole writeup seems good, and some of it can be kept informative rather than normative. I'll queue this up for things to do when I do get some round tuits to spend on policy, and see about adding -dbg packages for the libraries I have. manoj -- My Boss needs a surge protector. That way her mouth would be buffered from surprise spikes in her brain. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]