>
> [This mail is part of Debian Policy Weekly issue #5]
>
> Topic 11: Policy on stripping static libraries
>
> STATE: APPROVAL
>
> In December, we had a discussion on debian-devel about how we should treat
> static libraries WRT stripping. Currently, the policy only specifies how
> shared libraries should be stripped, but nothing is said about stripping
> static libraries.
>
> The following stripping policy has been suggested in the discussion. Unless
> someone objects, I'll change the policy text to use this scheme:
>
> runtime pkg: shared lib stripped with --strip-unneeded
> develop pkg: static lib stripped with --strip-debug
> debug pkg: static lib unstripped
I may be _way_ wrong here, but it seems to me that most people that do
(real) development, also want to debug. So we could make the "debug pkg"
unneeded by just allowing the develop pkg to contain the debug info.
(Personally, I don't see much use for static libs without debug info).
Also, from memory (and libg++), I remember that the "debug pkg" actually
is a shared library, with debugging information. Not a static one.
Is this wrong? Especially with c++ it seemd that having debugging
information for the libraries was very usfull also in debugging normal
code. So, to debug a normal (dynamiclaly linked) binary one needs[1] a
library with debugging info. In the scheme above, I see no place to add
this library.
[1] I had some g++/STL variables in my code, that gdb refused to show
the contents of, unless I gave it libraries with debugging info.
However, later I couldn't reproduce this anymore (I was using
different types, though).
--
joost witteveen, joostje@debian.org
Potentially offensive files, part 5: /dev/random.
`head -c 4 /dev/random` may print 4-letter words (once every approx 4e8 tries).