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

Re: consensus on debug (-g) policy

Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> 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
own. :-)

Chris Waters   xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
      or    xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr     | this .signature file.

Reply to: