I wonder where the *-dbg-8.0 naming comes from? Would it be *-dbg, it could be caught by "Extra-Includes" automatically. But I guess it's fine to list those 3 packages here explicitly. Are the *-dbg-* packages really needed in main, though?
The original dotNET6 MIR review didn't mention them explicitly: "List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: dotnet6 dotnet-host dotnet-hostfxr-6.0 dotnet-runtime-6.0 aspnetcore-runtime-6.0 dotnet-templates-6.0 dotnet-sdk-6.0 dotnet-targeting-pack-6.0 netstandard-targeting-pack-2.1 aspnetcore-targeting-pack-6.0 dotnet-apphost-pack-6.0"
IMO it should be fine either way. Keep or drop *-dbg-* as you like!
Plenty of inline comments! :)
I guess we can reduce it to just this:
* dotnet8 # MIR (LP: #2060056) runtime- dbg-8.0 runtime- dbg-8.0
* aspnetcore-
* dotnet-
* dotnet-sdk-dbg-8.0
I wonder where the *-dbg-8.0 naming comes from? Would it be *-dbg, it could be caught by "Extra-Includes" automatically. But I guess it's fine to list those 3 packages here explicitly. Are the *-dbg-* packages really needed in main, though?
The original dotNET6 MIR review didn't mention them explicitly: "List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: dotnet6 dotnet-host dotnet-hostfxr-6.0 dotnet-runtime-6.0 aspnetcore- runtime- 6.0 dotnet- templates- 6.0 dotnet-sdk-6.0 dotnet- targeting- pack-6. 0 netstandard- targeting- pack-2. 1 aspnetcore- targeting- pack-6. 0 dotnet- apphost- pack-6. 0"
IMO it should be fine either way. Keep or drop *-dbg-* as you like!