Re: Debug symbol metapackages

[Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>]

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