[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dbgsym packages and backports

On 14186 March 1977, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
>> Speaking with my debhelper/dbgsym implementor hat on.  I will leave
>> *all* decisions about backports to the backports FTP masters.
>  Well, that's an easy call.  ;)  Given that I'm uncertain how the
> dbgsym should be handled here I'll pass that ball on to the regular FTP
> masters. :)

The final decision is with the backports team.

Now, technically it's simple for us to turn it on, so basically "we
don't care, what do you want"?

So the points to consider are:

 - dbgsym packages need a debhelper (and possibly dpkg) backport
 - They are unknown to your base suite, though that shouldn't matter

It's a way bigger change for backports than most others are, but
personally I am in favor of it. For the simple reason that this is how
the future in the archive looks and such also how the packages to be
backported will look. That is, all those that do need more than a simple
rebuild, those with -dbg packages for example. Not having to undo this
is good. And while its a big change in policy, the (negative) effect for
users is small, if it is even noticable.

bye, Joerg
Some NM:
The shell script is called debcheck.py.

Reply to: