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

Re: consensus on debug (-g) policy

>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org> writes:

 Ben> Well, we talk about `gcc' and `install' in regard to them
 Ben> handling -g and -s. I think it's only pertinent to note
 Ben> `dh_strip' since it is a major tool used in our packages.

        This is a moot point, but I have no wish to engage in a
 prolonged debate on this issue (hint: I have no helper packages
 installed on my machines). 

        It is difficult to compile C code without gcc, and cc and
 install are common untilities found on UNIX systems; and are almost
 essential when it comes to build packages (please, I know about
 binary-all packages). Any helper packages are strictly optional for
 any package.

 Ben> How it handles (or how the maintainer should make it handle)
 Ben> this part of policy seems to be relevant.

        I beg to differ.

 Ben> Perhaps a more general statement such as:

 Ben> 	NOTE: Whether particular packaging tools honor this is left up to the
 Ben> 	maintainer of those tools. Please read the documentation for any such
 Ben> 	tools used in your packages.

        I can spot atleast a dozen spots where a general stement like
 this can be stuck into the policy document. However, exhorting people
 to read documentation about optrional helper packages seems like
 needless bloat of the policy documents to me.

        As I said elsewhere, please create a separate proposal for
 this paragraph, if you feel strongly about this. This is
 controversial, the rest of your proposal is not, and is technically
 quite sound (IMHO). Let us not drag the rest of the proposal into
 this quagmire, since we do not have to.

 Tact, n.: The unsaid part of what you're thinking.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Reply to: