[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#401385: This might not be as easy as I thought...

Kevin Brown writes:
> That may be true, but developers aren't the only ones who might make
> use of these files.  Anyone who gets a crash in an Ada application
> could get a much better traceback (for filing a bug report) with
> these files in place than without.
> Independent of the potential issues described below, we should give
> some serious thought to including the debugging files with the runtime
> package.
> It does bloat the package a bit, though.

The overriding reason is multilib.  We will make a separate -dbg
package, and we will probably even move the static library to another
package, too.  Better do it right the first time.


> But given that the control file is generated from an m4 master,
> changing binary-ada.mk in the required way may be a problem.  The
> argument to dh_strip will be --dbg-package, and it takes the name of
> the target package as its argument.  That's a problem because the
> package names are generated from the m4 master.

The only part of the package name that will change across versions is
the version number, and there is a macro in the Makefiles for that:
$(GNAT_VERSION).  All package names in binary-ada.mk are derived from
that macro, and we pass its value to m4 so it generates control from
control.m4.  So, no problem.  See the top 15 lines of binary-ada.mk of
you're not convinced.

Ludovic Brenta.

Reply to: