Re: consensus on debug (-g) policy
On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 06:47:27PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> 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 advantages.
My apologies -- the =debug proposal seemed to me to be overly complex
(and rather surprising, to me, given the original concept), so I went
in search of messages in support of my point of view, and found
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9909/msg00045.html
I was pleased that someone had expressed something of my own
reservations -- I thought it good, given your message, not to
go over the same point.
However, I can accept that you were not really objecting to the
proposal.
> > [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.
Then again it's at least as easy to provide a DEB_CFLAGS=-g for c
programs, and a DEB_FOOFLAGS=--glarg for foo programs.
> If you want to object, Raul, you're going to have to do it on your
> own. :-)
I did. With entirely unexpected results.
Then again, it looks like the proposal was solving a non-problem.
--
Raul
Reply to: