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/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
