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
> 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.