Re: Automatic Debug Packages
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 08 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 08 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>>> I've documented the .ddeb format in the wiki page  ("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.
> If we are going to enshrine ddebs into policy, we might as well
> teach dpkg about ddebs.
Multiarch will require libfoo:i386 and libfoo:amd64 (for example). It
might be simple to teach dpkg to use libfoo:ddeb:i386 and
libfoo:ddeb:amd64 at the same time. Doesn't looks so nice though.
>> 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
> I don't use helper packages, including debhelper. So far, policy
> has not required me to, so if you want to put anything about ddebs in
> policy, there should be a route for people not using debhelper to
> contribute to debug packages in Debian, and not be relegated to the
> status of second class packages.
He isn't asking you too. He is just saying that those 95% of packages
using debhelper or cdbs or the like the ddeb can be build
automatically without even having to change the source (or with just
adding a single dh_make_ddebs). If you want to do it the hard way you