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

Re: Automatic Debug Packages

This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > 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
> > section/component?)
>         I would support this.
>         I would also add that the debug symbols should live in
>  "/usr/lib/debug/" . /full/path/to/lib_or_binary, blessing the current
>  practice.

The only reason I can see for an extension like .ddeb is that it would
signal that they're like more like .udebs than .debs (not for regular
user consumption, may not have all the files under /usr/share/doc,
may have some funky layout based on this build-id idea, whatever).

That being said, I'm not sure that's either enough to create a new
extenstion or something that mandates a different extension.  It seems
like a reasonably compelling argument to me, but I don't feel strongly
enough to fight for it.

|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: