RE: checker libs with debugging symbols
On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Michael Meskes wrote:
> 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?
The reason we don't distribute deugging symbols in our other libraries is
because those libraries are meant for stand alone apps, i.e. not to be
dubugged as easily, however checker, whose only purpose is debugging
should include the symbols.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .