On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 10:54:09AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > The resulting debs are installable with dpkg -i ( \o/ ). I have not > tried anything fancy like setting up a local APT mirror and tried to > convince APT do install it. I did and apt works with ddeb just fine, meaning it can happily print infos about them, download them and install them with dpkg. There are two exceptions as far as I can see: - apt-ftparchive doesn't know about '.ddeb', so by default neither Contents nor Packages files created by it contain information about them. Users of "apt-ftparchive contents/packages" are (surprisingly) out of luck as far as I can see and have to wait for a patch (= 2 lines), but users of "apt-ftparchive generate" can configure the used extension, see apt-ftparchive manpage on how to do that. Debian uses dak to create the archive, so that isn't a problem per-se. I would presume most derivatives aren't using it either as alternatives are plenty. Those who do are very likely using generate as its just strictly better than manually creating Packages files with 'apt-ftparchive packages'. I guess most repository creators have this or similar problems and solutions through and that doesn't seem like all to important for the adoption. - apt/experimental supports installing local .deb files. That doesn't support the '.ddeb' extension yet. I leave it up to the reader to figure out how much of a dealbreaker that is… So, super-cow approves (d)debs. (In fact, apt-dbg never became a thing as automatic ddebs were always "very soon now" in existence every time it came up. This time please…) And it especially approves the debhelper branch name. ;) I think there will be some work upon us to make ddebs supported well (I invision something like a "apt-get debugsymbols foo" which installs the package foo-dbgsym and maybe optionally also the debug packages of the direct dependencies libfoo1 (libfoo-dbgsym) and libbar0.1 (python3-bar-dbgsym as it is the c-binding of a python library as you might (not) have guessed).) but lets get them first, shall we? :) btw: Is it planed to drop them into their own repository/component or are we gone blow up our regular Packages files with them? (you might guess from the wording which way I would prefer). Best regards David Kalnischkies
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature