Re: Development packages.
* Stephen Frost <firstname.lastname@example.org> [040323 00:29]:
> * Bernhard R. Link (email@example.com) wrote:
> > * Stephen Frost <firstname.lastname@example.org> [040322 21:14]:
> > > Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of end-users and local
> > > administrators using static libraries is rather dated and rarely the
> > > case these days.
> > I do not know, if they are used to make any programs intended for
> > production use any more, though I often found them very helpfull
> > when debugging things.
> > Having to recompile whole libraries just to locate some of those
> > ugly pointer-address relatated bugs makes those assembler near
> > languages like C and friends much more a pain than it has to be.
> Would -dbg packages fix this issue for you?
I do not know, what -dbg should exactly contain. If it contains
files usable for static linking, than that would suffice. Though
having to tell people: "if you want to compile statically, you have
to install -dbg, because that seemed a reason to have '.a's" sounds
Bernhard R. Link
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.