Re: consensus on debug (-g) policy
Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 08:10:05PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Since this obviously has a consensus, I am making it amended. Here are the
> > final changes.
> Actually, on Sept 1, Chris Waters raised an objection about
> the use of the =debug abstraction.
That wasn't actually a real objection, more of a comment. I tossed
out another idea, but admitted that it had flaws as well as
> [And, personally, I think he has a point: inventing a new mini-language
> to specify CFLAGS=-g doesn't seem to solve any useful problem. But the
> real issue is that I don't see that you have a consensus yet.]
I'm perfectly willing to have the existing proposal go through. In
fact, the additional abstraction may be a good thing, for packages
which aren't written in C, and don't use -g for debugging.
If you want to object, Raul, you're going to have to do it on your
Chris Waters firstname.lastname@example.org | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or email@example.com | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.