[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Automatic Debug Packages

On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 07:37:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> >> > 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.

> > 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

>         Since this is on -policy, I am commenting on when it gains
>  enough gravitas to be enshrined in policy. Getting things in policy is
>  also not a pre-requisite for implementing a general purpose, public
>  archive for auto-stripped debugging symbols packages.

There is a namespace issue here, that falls in scope for Policy because it
impacts interoperability; if there are going to be limits placed on the
names of packages in the main archive, that almost certainly *does* belong
in Policy.  And the Policy editors should not be dictating a dpkg
implementation for ddebs as a precondition, not when that dpkg
implementation isn't required and doesn't appear to have any backing from
the dpkg maintainers.

>         I do have a question: Why is the fact that these are
>  automatically created relevant?

Because if they're *not* automatically created, there's no namespace issue:
package name conflicts would continue to be resolved the usual way, via
ftpmasters and the NEW queue.

>         Why should it be a leading change in policy? Can't we try out
>  the experiment, make any changes needed, and then come with  the policy
>  change? If we do not need maintainers to change anything, ans we do not
>  need dpkg to change anything, why is there a hurry to get this into
>  policy before it has been implemented and tested?

I'm in no particular hurry, myself, but I think the right time to reserve
package namespace is *before* there are exceptions in the archive that have
to be dealt with.  What with the maxim about Policy not making packages
insta-buggy, and all.

>         So why not just have foo-ddeb.*.deb?

Why not, indeed?

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Reply to: