On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:20:17AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> 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. > Well, of we are top carve out a namespace in policy, it also > makes sense if we define whay such packages ought to contain as > well. Having a namespace carved out for packages with only detached > debugging symbols (and with the normal policy rules on regular > packages -- copyright, changelog, etc). Yes, certainly; but -dbg is not the correct namespace, then, since there are pre-existing packages using these names for other purposes. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
