RE: checker libs with debugging symbols
Sorry but I disagree here. For a user who only wants to debug his own
program debugging symbols in the libraries are not needed.
I'd prefer to have several packages: checker-bin, checker-libs,
checker-dbg or something like that. Remember, we do not distribute
debugging symbols in other libraries for the same reason. Instead we
provide an *-dbg package.
What do others think about this?
Dr. Michael Meskes, Projekt-Manager | topsystem Systemhaus GmbH
firstname.lastname@example.org | Europark A2, Adenauerstr. 20
email@example.com | 52146 Wuerselen
Go SF49ers! Go Rhein Fire! | Tel: (+49) 2405/4670-44
Use Debian GNU/Linux! | Fax: (+49) 2405/4670-10
>From: Ben Pfaff [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Thursday, June 19, 1997 10:25 PM
>To: email@example.com; Michael Meskes
>Subject: Re: checker libs with debugging symbols
>Michael Meskes <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Is there a reason for the checker libraries to come with debugging symbols?
>Yes. There is a good, even a superlatively good reason: checker is
>for debugging programs. It is *only* for debugging programs. Thus,
>debugging symbols are in there intentionally. When something goes
>wrong, even in the C library, it helps an enormous amount if one can
>find the exact line in the source that causes the problem.
>Regrettably, one must have 300MB of source code online in order to do
>this, but that is the price we pay.
>> I haven't used checker yet, so I don't know. But I assume that the
>> without debugging symbols would work.
>They would work. But it isn't The Right Thing To Do.
>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 .