Mario Iseli wrote: > True, true, true... I guess it's a good solution as we have it now, if the > maintainer thinks a -dbg package would be useful, he/she can create one and > provide it to the users. I personally wouldn't do that for smaller packages > which are compiled on "normal modern i386 stuff" in less than 15 minutes > because I think that in this case the user can do that on his own. For big > packages (like KDE for example) it's definitively better to have such a > -dbg package. Well, not only big packages make problems ... some small programs might need a lot of libraries, and recompiling *all* of them is the biggest problem.
> Mhh'k... Archivesize... How many percent of the whole mirrorsize belong > to -dbg packages? I'd assume it's not so much the binary size of the packages, but the number of them ... that's why I asked whether a new branch might be better for them. Like "stable", "testing", "unstable", "experimental" ... "dbginfo". Then normal users wouldn't even see this packages. Regards, Phil -- Versioning your /etc, /home or even your whole installation? Try fsvs (fsvs.tigris.org)! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]