Re: Automatic Debug Packages
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 01:50:21PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > 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 no reason for
> > dpkg to treat these packages specially - a simple namespace convention
> > imposed by Policy (i.e., reserving package names ending in "-ddeb" for use
> > by this archive, which is what has been proposed) is sufficient, and
> > requires no changes to dpkg, which is as it should be.
> > I think the .ddeb extension is a red herring. There ought not be anything
> > new to teach dpkg, here; the only thing of relevance is that there not be
> > namespace clashes between the ddebs and the debs in the main archive, and
> > the filename is not relevant to that at all.
> I understand your concern about this extension, but I do see it as a
> merit. Of course, our tools must be aware of it.
Except no one has *any intention* of making our tools "be aware" of this
extension. This is a different file name convention, with no other impact.
> And apt should know -before updating or whatnot- that a package was
> installed from a ddeb, if they are to share the base name.
It was not proposed to have the packages share the base name, and doing so
implies a much more onerous implementation in the package manager than we
would otherwise need.
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/