Re: Experimental ddeb support in debhelper and lintian (Was: Re: -dbg packages; are they actually useful?)
On 2015-04-07 21:10, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2015-04-04 12:58, Esokrates wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 04, 2015 10:54:09 AM Niels Thykier wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I know predictions are hard, but is there a plan to get things done for the
>> next release (Stretch)?
>>
>
> At this point, there is no plan, sorry. However, we got a functional
> prototype (for part of the problem) and some people poking a bit at it
> from a "design view". I received conflicting remarks:
>
> A) Use ".ddeb" (i.e. with an extra "d").
>
> B) Use ".deb" (i.e. the regular extension) with a new "section".
>
I managed to confuse myself here and swapped A and B in the above. What
I meant to write was:
A) Use ".deb" (i.e. the regular extension) with a new "section".
B) Use ".ddeb" (i.e. with an extra "d").
The rest should now make sense - apologies for the confusion:
> Both have their own advantages and disadvantages. In particular:
>
> A) means that almost every existing tool will handle the debug debs
> like a regular deb (which it is) and will generally work perfectly
> out of the box.
> - There are a couple of exceptions, but we are limited to something
> like lintian and dpkg-genchanges.
> - There will be tools that might want to handle them differently.
> Programs like dak and reprepro might want to (support) put(ting)
> them in a different part of their repositories.
> - This is *currently not working* since dpkg-genchanges errors out
> on the auto-generated .deb files.
>
> B) means that .ddebs can be special cased on filenames rather than on
> section (like udebs). Furthermore, there might be a lot of things
> that do not need to support .ddebs at all.
> - Downside is that adding support is a manual extra step for many
> tools, that (besides the filename) would otherwise be able to
> handle .ddebs immediately.
> - On the plus side: dpkg-genchanges in Jessie can support this
> solution immediately with a minor warning.
>
>>From my point of view, I am not strongly attached to one solution over
> the other:
> * I am slightly preferring A), but I am ready to implement either
> solution in the tools, I maintain.
> * The difference for debhelper is a single "d" and a section name.
> * The change for lintian is larger, but B) is the "heavy" solution
> and I already got a "mostly working" patch for that.
>
>
> [...]
>
>
Reply to: