Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> All right. Having been educated about the new build-id
> mechanism, I think there is not reason for policy to prohibit either
> approach, or to settle on one or the other.
>
> To recap:
> 1) packages with detached debugging symbols should be named
> ${package name}-${debug suffix}. As a corollary, no ordinary
> packages names may end in ${debug suffix}.
They may be automatically created. They may also be manually created (if they
are listed in debian/control, so for complex packages where they need some
manual work, it can be done).
> 2) These packages may just symlink
> /usr/share/doc/${package name}-${debug suffix} to
> /usr/share/doc/${package name}
> (and of course, depend on ${package name}
> 3) The detached debugging symbols should be placed in a subdirectory of
> /usr/lib/debug, the exact path being determined by the mechanism
> used (either build ids or debug links can and may be used)
Don't forget that there are other debug info, like e.g. python dbg extensions or
mono .mdb files. Those aren't placed in /usr/lib/debug, so we shouldn't restrict
the ddeb packages content to files in /usr/lib/debug.
> 4) Otherwise, these packages are normal debian packages
5) There may only be one ddeb per source package (if more where needed, we could
consider it).
Cheers,
Emilio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature