On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:43:17PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 04:08:15PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Please consider renaming perl-debug to perl-dbg. > "A debug package is a package with a name ending in -dbg, that contains > additional information that gdb can use". I believe the history here is that perl-debug was originally just /usr/bin/debugperl and the gdb detached symbols came later. See #433631. Not sure when we dropped libperld.a. IMO the perl-dbg name emphasizes the gdb symbols rather than the separate binary. But I don't really care much. I wonder if we should have a libperl5.14-dbg package too, but if the actual policy doesn't mandate much, I suppose it'd be overkill. > Sounds entirely reasonable and fairly un-disruptive. I guess we'll > want a transitional dummy package for a release cycle, but there are > no reverse deps. Ack on the transitional package. > Also, the package description should probably be revised, since it > doesn't make explicit mention of debugging symbols, only enabling > debugging features within perl. > > Any objections to doing this now, for transition into unstable with > whichever of 5.16/5.18 we end up with? No objections, it just never seemed worth the effort and ddebs were always "coming soon." -- Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
