Re: RFS: poco and poco-doc (updated packages) [3rd try]
George Danchev <email@example.com> writes:
> Actually it would be smarter do ship only the detached debugging symbols
> I believe. I can't think of a use case where the debugging version of
> the shared library would be desperately needed or preferred, or I'm
> wrong ?
Well, usually the reason why a shared library builds a separate debugging
version is that the code actually changes. In other words, rather than
just having debugging symbols, the functions in the library actually work
differently. Perhaps more checking is done, or more logging, or the like.
If that isn't the case here and the only difference is that one has
debugging symbols and the other doesn't, then I agree, you should just
ship the detached debugging symbols for the regular library and ignore
(and not package) the d version.
> Nod. By the way I was looking at the lintian-1.24.0/checks/binaries:
> around row 148; shouldn't expected_name as of name.so.[0-9] also be
> taken into account ?
I can't figure out what you're getting at. Line 148 is:
$expected_name =~ s/\.so(\.|\z)//;
which is one part of the code that mangles a library SONAME into a package
name. This line removes the ".so." part of the SONAME.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>