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

Re: Automatic Debug Packages

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:17:45AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > 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.

>         The policy editors may ask for the design to be implemented and
>  tested, and (gasp) even critique the design,

Yes, and I may critique the quality of your critique.  This doesn't belong
in dpkg.

> before having it added to policy. Policy is not the place to shoce in
> untested/raw design.

It's not particularly untested, it's essentially equivalent to what's been
deployed in Ubuntu for several years now.

>         And in this case, there seems to be an issue of occams razor:
>  why should a new file suffix be created when  policy based naming wold
>  not require it in the first place

It shouldn't.  Why are you fixating on this when I've already noted that
it's a red herring?

So we fix that.  That doesn't require making any changes to dpkg.

>         So, please keep heckling from the peanut gallery to a minimum,
>  please, and assume that policy editors have a modicum of sense when
>  dealing with their role duties.

If you were showing a modicum of sense, there would be no need to assume.

For example, not referring to a fellow member of the Technical Committee,
the constitutional authority on Debian technical policy, as "the peanut

> >>         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.

>         Seems like if policy carves out a namespace for debug packages,
>  it would serve for both automatically generated and hand crafted debug
>  packages; and it is trivial for the automatic generation not to happen
>  when there is an entry in debian/control for a debug package already,
>  as long as there is a naming convention for debug packages.

That's fair, but it doesn't guard against package name collisions with
packages built from a *different* source package; so if manually-built
packages are allowed to use the same namespace, there ought to be a policy
in place that prevents them from being provided in a way that confuses the
automated build process.

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: