Re: Automatic Debug Packages
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 07:37:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> > dpkg doesn't know about filenames AFAICS. So you can't coinstall
> >> > foo_1.0-1_i386.deb and foo_1.0-1_i386.ddeb, right? So we do want the
> >> > -ddeb suffix.
> >> If we are going to enshrine ddebs into policy, we might as well
> >> teach dpkg about ddebs.
> > 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
> Since this is on -policy, I am commenting on when it gains
> enough gravitas to be enshrined in policy. Getting things in policy is
> also not a pre-requisite for implementing a general purpose, public
> archive for auto-stripped debugging symbols packages.
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.
> 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.
> Why should it be a leading change in policy? Can't we try out
> the experiment, make any changes needed, and then come with the policy
> change? If we do not need maintainers to change anything, ans we do not
> need dpkg to change anything, why is there a hurry to get this into
> policy before it has been implemented and tested?
I'm in no particular hurry, myself, but I think the right time to reserve
package namespace is *before* there are exceptions in the archive that have
to be dealt with. What with the maxim about Policy not making packages
insta-buggy, and all.
> So why not just have foo-ddeb.*.deb?
Why not, indeed?
--
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: