Bug#43787: changed title, and remade the proposed change
On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 08:24:06AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> Ok, this is my last attempt for a crowd pleaser.
I hope not.
> This new an improved
> proposal should satisfy any and all complaints (as few as they were). This
> new proposal has several added features.
Unfortunately, I dislike the wording in the new proposal.
> If you want users to be able
> to rebuild your package with debugging information easily, the suggested
> way is to use the ``DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS'' environment variable.
This is way to weak, IMHO. First, I think as many packages as possible
should allow for this feature, so it should not be "if you want users to be
able", but: "if it is possible to build the program with debugging
information", so that I have the policy behind me if I file a bug report
which implements this change in a package. So, this feature should be
optional but strongly recommended.
Second, _if_ package implements the feature, it must do it by parsing the
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS variable, or we will never get consistency at all. Hence,
I think the "the suggested way" is much too weak in this context.
> In order to retain this information in the custom built package, the
> binaries should not be stripped (either with "install -s" or using the
> strip program).
First, who says that we talk about binaries? Can we find a more general term
like "object files"? There are also libraries...
Then, the object files must not be stripped. Again, should seems to be too
> NOTE: This should not be how the package is built by
> default, it is merely for convenience to users wishing to debug the
> programs in the package, or for you as the maintainer to find problems
> when bugs are filed against the package.
I think this note is unnecessary and can be deleted without substitute.
The rest is fine.
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org for public PGP Key
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de PGP Key ID 36E7CD09