Bug#43787: changed title, and remade the proposed change

[Raul Miller <raul@usatoday.com>]

On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 08:24:06AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> Ok, this is my last attempt for a crowd pleaser. This new an improved
> proposal should satisfy any and all complaints (as few as they were).
> This new proposal has several added features.

I still think this makes the whole recommendation much more
complicated to implement.

Let's assume that you care to keep executables with debugging
symbols around.  In that case, the old recommendation would
have you build the package once.  The new recommendation
would have you compile twice.  Time saved?

Let's assume that you don't care to keep executables with
debugging symbols around.  In that case, you compile without
-g -- end of story.

So this proposal is aimed at people who want to have both options, near
as I can tell -- and even here, it's for people who don't want to edit
any files (either putting -g into a makefile, or perhaps something like
specifying CC as a shell script which does /usr/bin/gcc -g "$@").

I think a simple sentence indicating that -g is really optional would
be fine.  Perhaps:


*** 2017,2023 ****
            <prgn>install</prgn>, or by calling <prgn>strip</prgn> on
            the binaries after they have been copied into
            <tt>debian/tmp</tt> but before the tree is made into a
!           package.</p>
            
          <p>
            The <tt>-g</tt> flag is useful on compilation so that you
--- 2017,2024 ----
            <prgn>install</prgn>, or by calling <prgn>strip</prgn> on
            the binaries after they have been copied into
            <tt>debian/tmp</tt> but before the tree is made into a
!           package.  Note that binaries must be stripped even if
!           they were compiled without -g.</p>
            
          <p>
            The <tt>-g</tt> flag is useful on compilation so that you

-- 
Raul