On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:17:45AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > There is a namespace issue here, that falls in scope for Policy because it
>> > impacts interoperability; if there are going to be limits placed on the
>> > names of packages in the
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2009-08-10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I would also add that the debug symbols should live in
>> "/usr/lib/debug/" . /full/path/to/lib_or_binary, blessing the current
>> practice.
>
> You are missing the new features of build-id as written e
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:46:49PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> 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 i
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 deb
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:17:45AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > There is a namespace issue here, that falls in scope for Policy because it
> > impacts interoperability; if there are going to be limits placed on the
> > names of packages in the main archive, that almost certainly *does* belong
Particularly given the info file change, I think we've now accumulated
enough stuff in Git to warrant another Policy release. There are a few
other things in flight, but as before we can always pick those up in the
next release.
I therefore propose to make a Policy 3.8.3 release next Saturday wit
Stephen Gran writes:
> The only reason I can see for an extension like .ddeb is that it would
> signal that they're like more like .udebs than .debs (not for regular
> user consumption, may not have all the files under /usr/share/doc, may
> have some funky layout based on this build-id idea, what
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > 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 int
On 2009-08-10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would also add that the debug symbols should live in
> "/usr/lib/debug/" . /full/path/to/lib_or_binary, blessing the current
> practice.
You are missing the new features of build-id as written earlier by
insisting on this.
/Sune
--
To UNSUB
On 2009-08-10, Roger Leigh wrote:
> That's what I meant (just not sure of the correct dak terminology).
> Would this present problems for the ftp-masters, since TTBOMK currently
> source and binary packages are restricted to the same area? i.e. would
> work on projectb/dak be required to implemen
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
> 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 conventi
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> Also, It is indeed trivial to add that to non-helper-package using
>> packages, it just requires some editing (just like modufying helper
>> packages will need editing).
>
> Since it's trivial, I look forward to seeing patches from you to
> implement p
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 01:55:51PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes:
>
> > 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?)
>
> The Packages file lists all
Roger Leigh writes:
> 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:
>>> Or even just -dbg, since aren't the existing debug packages basically
>>> .ddebs, modulo bugs?
>> There are a few significant exceptions, suc
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 pr
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to 'pack
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Why is it not trivial?
> >
> > Because it requires editing the rules file for each such package?
> > (debhelper using packages all get tweaked in a single
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Why is it not trivial?
>
> Because it requires editing the rules file for each such package?
> (debhelper using packages all get tweaked in a single shot.)
Rubbish. I suspect all cdbs using packa
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> Why is it not trivial? I have such a hook in my pakages, and it
>> is not rocket science.
>>
>> If you think that adding stuff like
>> --8<---cut here---start->8---
>> file
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Why is it not trivial?
Because it requires editing the rules file for each such package?
(debhelper using packages all get tweaked in a single shot.)
Don Armstrong
--
All my dreams came true.
I just didn't think them through.
-- a softer world #
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 07:37:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> >> > dpkg doesn't know about filenames AFAICS. So you can't coinstall
>> >> > foo_1.0-1_i386.deb and foo_1.0-1_i386.ddeb, right? So we do want the
>> >> > -ddeb suffix.
>
>> >>
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, 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 implemen
On 2009-08-10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Most -dbg packages *shouldn't* live in the archive, but maintainers
>> keep adding them by hand anyway, and we don't have anywhere else to
>> put them.
> Well, right now there is nowhere to put the .ddebs either, and
> they are really just .debs w
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 06:48:47AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > The main point is probably that they shouldn't live in the main
>> > archive due to space reasons. Of course we could also filter out
>> > '*-ddeb*' or '*-dbgsym*' as long as it's n
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here's a proposed update to the Policy section on info documents. I'm
> looking for feedback or seconds.
Seconded but:
> + at /usr/share/info/dir on your system and choose
> + the most relevant (or create a new section if none of the
> +
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 au
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 06:48:47AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The main point is probably that they shouldn't live in the main
> > archive due to space reasons. Of course we could also filter out
> > '*-ddeb*' or '*-dbgsym*' as long as it's not '*-dbg*', which should be
> If automa
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 07:37:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> > dpkg doesn't know about filenames AFAICS. So you can't coinstall
> >> > foo_1.0-1_i386.deb and foo_1.0-1_i386.ddeb, right? So we do want the
> >> > -ddeb suffix.
> >> If we are going to enshrine ddebs into policy, w
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2009-08-10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> dpkg "knows" about them the same way it "knows" about debs, AFAICS.
>> Why, then, the .ddeb suffix? Why are these not just .debs, with
>> a specific naming schema?
>
> At least they shouldn't clash with
On 2009-08-10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> dpkg "knows" about them the same way it "knows" about debs, AFAICS.
> Why, then, the .ddeb suffix? Why are these not just .debs, with
> a specific naming schema?
At least they shouldn't clash with maintainer-defined ones, IMHO, as they
are create
30 matches
Mail list logo
