On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 07:52:23AM -0700, 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.
Could we not just use a "-ddbg" suffix for "detached debug" information, perhaps with a new archive section to match? This will not conflict with existing practice for -dbg, so could go into Policy without violating any prexisting namespace conventions. Reading through this thread, I don't see a compelling reason for using a .ddeb extension given that they are just regular .debs, nor for keeping the packages separate from the main archive (if the size of the Packages file is an issue, can't they just go in a separate debug section/component?) Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
