Re: Automatic Debug Packages
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2009-08-10, Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> dpkg "knows" about them the same way it "knows" about debs, AFAICS.
>> Why, then, the .ddeb suffix? Why are these not just .debs, with
>> a specific naming schema?
> At least they shouldn't clash with maintainer-defined ones,
Sure. But that is as simple as the helper package looking at
debian/control to see if a -dbg package is already defined, and not
doing the automagic thingy.
In other words, let the maintainer simply override the auto helper
tool if they so desire.
> IMHO, as they are created differently.
This should not matter. Whether you use debhelper or cdbs or
yada, the end package is still a .deb -- so how a package containing
debug symbols is created should not impact the naming. The important
thing is the content of the package, not how it was assembled.
> The main point is probably that they shouldn't live in the main
> archive due to space reasons. Of course we could also filter out
> '*-ddeb*' or '*-dbgsym*' as long as it's not '*-dbg*', which should be
Id automated debug packages should not live in the archive, why
should -dbg packages? As far as I can see, the issue should be based on
the content of the debug packages; either debug packages belong in the
archive, or they do not; independent of the tool chain used to assemble
> dropped at some point but should live in the main archive if present
> as they're defined in debian/control.
They should be dropped iff the automated tools can create the
package; I doubt that the authors envisage 100% coverage (upstream
build systems are varied enough that 100% coverage would require AI
"Patriotism is an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles."
George Jean Nathan
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C