Re: dbgsym packages and backports
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> 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
> much.
>
> 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.
my oppinion would be: yes! please implement it.
The impact for users would be minimal and it is really nice to have those
dbg packages. Its also easier for our uploaders if they don't have to remove
the feature from their packages.
Alex
Reply to: