Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 08 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> I've documented the .ddeb format in the wiki page [1] ("DDeb Format",
>> which is short since the format is basically that of .debs). Do we
>> really need this to be documented in policy?
>
> Not if that is all that is. So ddebs are just -dbg packages
> renamed to foo_version_arch.ddeb (you do not need ddeb in the name
> since they are called .ddebs.)
dpkg doesn't know about filenames AFAICS. So you can't coinstall
foo_1.0-1_i386.deb and foo_1.0-1_i386.ddeb, right? So we do want the -ddeb suffix.
> The wiki does not seem to impose any additional rules on the
> ddebs (I assume that all the restrictions on a normal package still
> apply).
Right.
> Seems like then all that is needed is to build the package as
> normal, and after the dpkg invocation to build the package, one just
> adds a call to mv. This is simple.
You can build a .ddeb manually, yes. However for some cases (e.g. packages using
debhelper and building ELF binaries) a .ddeb will be automatically created (if
none is created manually) and detached debugging symbols will be put there. I'll
try to automatize other languages too, so that having full archive coverage is
as simpler as possible.
Cheers,
Emilio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature