Re: PW#5-11: Policy on stripping static libraries
On 15 Jan, joost witteveen wrote:>
>> People that wants to create a statically linked program need an archive
>> library (humm, seems an assertion that needs to be re-checked; it's
>> historically true, but ... who knows? I'll do some tests trying to
>> build static executables from shared libs).
>
> No, that will not work. Or at least result in sub-optimal code, as
> the shared libs are compiled with -fPIC, whereas the static ones are
> not.
Good point. This in case using the shared lib from the runtime package.
> But how many people want to create statically linked programmes,
> that don't want to do debugging?
Well, I don't know. Actually we put static libs in -dev and -dbg
packages. If they aren't needed by anyone, than I'll be very happy to
through them away.
>> Actually only your libg++ holds shared libs for debugging, (and
>> installs them on top of /etc/ld.so.conf, which is IMO something not to
>> be done on a production system :-)
>
> Give me a way to do it better, and I'll adopt that. But I don't think
> there is a better way.
Are you talking too early? :-)
see below.
>> I have already proposed (well, I'm proposing it now :-) to build -dbg
>> packages in a different way:
>>
>> * a shared unstripped lib, compiled with -DDEBUG, with the same
>> name.soname of the runtime lib, installed in a different dir
>> (/usr/lib/debug) which *ISN'T* in /etc/ld.so.conf
>
> Why should this not be in ld.so.conf? What's your reasoning behind that?
There is no need to force all users on a system to load a debug library
which is really needed only from _one_ user.
> Why would I want to install a libarary that I don't want to use?
Why do you say that?
every time you want to use the debug libraries, just do
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib/debug gdb <prog>
and you start without disturbing anyone on the system. (there is a
trick to debug setuid executables, see a previous post from me on this
list last sunday)
Fabrizio
--
| fpolacco@icenet.fi fpolacco@debian.org fpolacco@pluto.linux.it
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
> more than 35 months are needed to get rid of the millennium. [me]
>If NT is your answer, means you didn't understand the question.[som1]
Reply to: