Re: Automatic Debug Packages
Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
> I don't have a strong opinion on whether ddebs should be documented in
> policy, but I certainly don't agree with requiring dpkg to understand
> them as a prerequisite for implementing a general purpose, public
> archive for auto-stripped debugging symbols packages. There really is
> no reason for dpkg to treat these packages specially - a simple
> namespace convention imposed by Policy (i.e., reserving package names
> ending in "-ddeb" for use by this archive, which is what has been
> proposed) is sufficient, and requires no changes to dpkg, which is as it
> should be.
Or even just -dbg, since aren't the existing debug packages basically
.ddebs, modulo bugs?
> I think the .ddeb extension is a red herring. There ought not be
> anything new to teach dpkg, here; the only thing of relevance is that
> there not be namespace clashes between the ddebs and the debs in the
> main archive, and the filename is not relevant to that at all.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>