Re: Automatic Debug Packages
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu27@gmail.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AptElfDebugSymbols is the specification. It
>> does use *.ddeb. There isn't any clear statement about how *.ddeb
>> packages differ from *.deb packages. It looks like, by and large, they
>> don't, except they may not need to contain the same set of things. The
>> packages are not in debian/control or the things fed from it, but are
>> in *.changes.
> The format is the same of .deb packages, only the extension changes.
I assumed that. I'm more concerned right now with the Policy compliance
of the contents. Ubuntu talks about using a separate package extension
because they don't need to be full packages, but there doesn't seem to be
any particular motivating reason for that -- in other words, I still don't
see any reason why they can't be regular Debian packages.
> Anyway I don't care about one or many ddeb packages, convince the
> ftpmasters and I'll do one per binary package, resolving the build id
> file conflicts with replaces.
Excellent, thank you. That's certainly my intention.
>> The debug packages depend on the packages for which they have symbols,
>> which solves the problem of not installing debug packages that both
>> provide symbols for the same binary.
> I don't get the problem, but I agree having one ddeb per binary package
> makes package relationships between ddebs and normal packages easier.
There are multiple places in the archive where two binary packages install
binaries with the same name but different contents, where for some reason
alternatives cannot be used. If using the binary-id method, this doesn't
matter, but if using the gnu_debuglink method, those debug packages also
have to conflict. Having the debug package depend on the corresponding
binary package takes care of this. (So does, of course, using binary-id
everywhere.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: