Bug#280030: libc6: sprof location

[GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>]

At Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:36:03 -0500,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > At Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:19:22 +0100,
> > Miroslaw Kwasniak wrote:
> > > Please move sprof from libc6-prof to libc6-dev or even to libc6.
> > > It's precious even without lib*_p.a.
> > 
> > Why?  We everytime need concrete reason to change something like this
> > because libc6 affects a lot of packages.
> > 
> > I guess it is just historical reason to have separate package
> > libc6-prof, but I also think there's no strong reason to move it to
> > libc6.
> > 
> > Again, we need concrete reason.  If you don't have reasons, I will not
> > touch to change libc6-prof, and close this wishlist.
> 
> Huh?  Goto, please think about bugs before flaming them.  Let's look at
> the description of libc6-prof:

I don't have any intention to flame it, and I don't flame with it - if
you feel so, it's over-thinking or I'm sorry my English is not just
good to bring to you.  I just want to know "why".  I think it's
important to listen to the original submitters intention.

> Description: GNU C Library: Profiling Libraries
>  Static libraries compiled with profiling info (-pg) suitable for use
>  with gprof.
> 
> libc6-prof exists to hold the _p libraries, because they are very large
> and almost no one wants them.  sprof is not a static library suitable
> for use with gprof.  In fact, it's only usable on shared libraries, so
> forcing people to install the profiling libraries to get it doesn't
> make much sense!
> 
> I think this would be a great change to make.

I second it to move from libc6-prof to libc6-dev (not libc6).  It
needs additional conflicts (like moving getconf from libc6-dev to
libc6), we should do in the next update.

Regards,
-- gotom