Re: consensus on debug (-g) policy
>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <firstname.lastname@example.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
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 <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E