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

Re: Development packages.



* Bernhard R. Link (blink@informatik.uni-freiburg.de) wrote:
> * Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> [040323 00:29]:
> > * Bernhard R. Link (blink@informatik.uni-freiburg.de) wrote:
> > > * Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> [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
> quite strange...

Err, no, it wouldn't contain files for static linking, it'd contain
debugging information so that you could debug your programs using gdb.
You were talking about debugging above.

	Stephen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: