Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?
On 22-Apr-07, 14:39 (CDT), Neil Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I'd like to see all library source packages having a minimum of 4
> binary packages required by Policy: the SONAME, the -dev, the -dbg and
> a -doc package. (Libraries for perl or other non-compiled languages
> would be exempt from -dbg packages but not -doc.)
1. Rather than cluttering the archive and Packages file with -dbg
packages that will (mostly) never be used, how about mandating a "debug"
target in library debian/rules files, so that when someone does need the
debug package, it's trivial to build. Since the person most likely to
need the target is the package maintainer, there would be some incentive
to make sure it works.
2. Why a seperate -doc? API docs should be part of the -dev package. I'm
going to guess that for *most* libraries, the docs are a trivial part of
the size of the -dev package. For those with significant documentation,
sure, a seperate -doc makes sense, just as we do now.
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net