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
> 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/