On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:29:55 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So while I'd love to have a way to have -dbg packages available for
> every binary, I actually am happy with this proposal to do it for only
> every library (plus whatever other binaries really need it). And it's
> a direction we're already moving in, with, as I mentioned, 227
> lib*-dbg packages already in the archive. That's more than 10% of all
> our libraries already done[3].
So, making it a should would make 90% of our library packages
insta-buggy.
> So I suggest that we take this as an existing practice, document it as
> a "should" in policy for now, document *how* to do separated debugging
> symbols in the developers reference (which does not currently seem to
> mention it at all), and go add -dbg versions of our library packages.
I would rather add it as a recommended practice in policy, with a
note that it will become a should/must as we get better coverage, and
_also_ provide examples of what maintainers need to do to create
separate debugging symbol packages in an informative footnote.
manoj
--
Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?" George Carlin
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
