Steve Langasek dijo [Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 05:15:39PM -0700]: > > If we are going to enshrine ddebs into policy, we might as well > > teach dpkg about ddebs. > > 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. > > I think the .ddeb extension is a red herring. There ought not be anything > new to teach dpkg, here; the only thing of relevance is that there not be > namespace clashes between the ddebs and the debs in the main archive, and > the filename is not relevant to that at all.
I understand your concern about this extension, but I do see it as a merit. Of course, our tools must be aware of it. And apt should know -before updating or whatnot- that a package was installed from a ddeb, if they are to share the base name. But I feel ddebs will allow debugging packages creation and installation to take place in a much more transparent, automatic fashion. I think this will be in the interest of both users and developers. -- Gunnar Wolf • gw...@gwolf.org • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
