Re: Lintian checks
On 14-10-2009, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
>
> --C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:40:49AM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>> >> If toto.cma has been compiled with -g, this is at least a warning (I
>> >> would even say it is an error).
>> >
>> > May I remind you that our current policy recommends ("should") compiling
>> > all objects with debugging enabled? Chapter 3, on line version at
>> > http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/ocaml_packaging_policy.html/c3=
> 05.h=3D
>> > tml
>>=20
>> I think it deserve a removal from the policy ;-)=20
>> Do you agree ?
>
> No, not really, but let's proceed in stages.
>
> I concur that thus far we haven't done a good job of enforcing that
> policy recommendation (the fact you, which are very active in d-o-m,
> were unaware of it is already a good evidence of that). Then, even if I
> don't remember exactly the history, I'm confident that the
> recommendation was not added by a "lone wolf" :-), we reached a more or
> less rough consensus before somebody added it to policy. Before
> reharshing the topic, it would be nice if someone can dig up the history
> of that addition.
>
> One argument for not removing the "use -g recommendation" is the one
> given by St=E9phane: -g has no runtime penalty. Also, I add that it is
> very useful and badly needed by programmers: when your program fails,
> you want to understand _where_, no matter if it is in your code or in a
> system library. When the failure is in a system library, it does not
> necessarily mean it is a but in that library, it might have been you
> that violated some assumption described in the lib API.
>
> That latter aspect is what, in my mind, makes "-g" different from
> "-p". When I do profiling I'm usually interested in profiling my own
> code, not that of the lib I'm using. Surely sometime you need to do that
> as well, but in those cases recompiling them is probably the right way
> to proceed, as it is rare enough.
>
> To conclude: I'm for keeping the recommendation.
I agree with you and Stephane argument is good. Just forget about it.
Keep the "-g policy".
However the "-p" lintian check is maybe worth.
Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall
Reply to: