Ben Hutchings: > [Now with valid addresses] > > On Thu, 2016-07-14 at 14:21 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> Currently the linux-latest source package builds a metapackage named >> linux-image-<flavour>-dbg for each kernel flavour that has a debug >> symbols package, with a dependency on that package. >> >> We're preparing to move the debug symbols packages to the debug >> archive, but I'm not sure what to do with the metapackages. If the >> metapackages stay in the main archive, will britney see their >> dependencies as unsatisfiable in testing, and so block migration? >> Is it OK to move the metapackages to the debug archive too (which >> requires giving them misleading metadata)? >
Hi, Thanks for working on migrating the dbg packages to the debug archive. :) Britney (along with almost everything else) will /not/ see anything in the debug archive (and accordingly, the dependencies will be unsatisfied). I believe the consensus is that unstable should be self-contained (i.e. without unstable-debug) - like we have with main vs. non-free+contrib. My personal preference is leaning towards putting the meta package in the debug archive. I fear that allowing packages in unstable/testing to depend on packages in their -debug counterparts is going to be a chaos beyond redemption. Thanks, ~Niels
