Re: checker libs with debugging symbols
Michael Meskes <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> What have libc*-dev, gdb, gcc etc. in common with debugging symbols in
> When I debug my program it suffices to me to know the problem came in
> the call to gets() for instance. I'm not interested in seeing more
> details, simply because I expect the library to be okay. Usually I
> expect a bug in my software before I consider a buggy libc.
> But if the common feeling is to not do that I can still strip the
> libararies myself, you're right. But it'll have to be strip
> /usr/i486-linuxchecker/lib/* :-)
> Anyway, with your arguments you could as well ask for libc-dbg to be
> fold into libc-dev again as it was earlier on.
Look, it already takes over an hour to compile the checker package and
about 300MB of disk space. Then it takes a couple hours to upload the
thing. And sometimes I find myself doing this multiple times per
week. If I made another version of the package, without debugging
symbols on the libraries, it would double the time-and-space effort.
I'm *not* going to do this without a good reason. And yours is *not*
a good enough reason, to double the effort just so someone can avoid
typing `sudo strip /usr/i486-linuxchecker/lib/*'. Checker is for
debugging, and if you really want to do debugging, you need those
Like I said before, it's not The Right Thing To Do.
I am happy, however, to find that my package is popular enough to
spark controversy. :-)
Ben Pfaff <email@example.com> http://www.msu.edu/user/pfaffben
PGP key: http://www.msu.edu/user/pfaffben/pgp.html or a keyserver near you
Linux: choice of a GNU generation -- Debian GNU/Linux: the only free Linux
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .