Re: Automatic Debug Packages
Roger Leigh <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 07:52:23AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 05:42:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Or even just -dbg, since aren't the existing debug packages basically
>>> .ddebs, modulo bugs?
>> There are a few significant exceptions, such as libc6-dbg and libqt4-dbg,
>> where the packages contain complete alternate debug builds of the libraries,
>> /not/ detached debugging symbols.
> Could we not just use a "-ddbg" suffix for "detached debug" information,
> perhaps with a new archive section to match? This will not conflict
> with existing practice for -dbg, so could go into Policy without
> violating any prexisting namespace conventions.
We could also ask the existing -dbg packages that are not detached
debugging symbols to rename their packages. That would probably mean less
total migration effort, given that the vast majority of -dbg packages
currently in the archive are detached debugging symbols, but it would
cause more pain for those particular packages.
> Reading through this thread, I don't see a compelling reason for using a
> .ddeb extension given that they are just regular .debs,
> nor for keeping the packages separate from the main archive (if the size
> of the Packages file is an issue, can't they just go in a separate debug
The Packages file lists all archive sections. I think you mean moving
them to a separate archive area (which by definition means moving them
outside of main, since main is an archive area). That doesn't mean that
they need to move off of ftp.debian.org, just that they would be akin to
contrib or non-free. I think that approach makes the most sense, since
that also allows main mirrors to choose whether they want to mirror the
(possibly quite large) debug archive area.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>