Re: Bug#43787: changed title, and remade the proposed change
On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 01:11:33PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
>
> I think that you have far too little trust in the common sense of
> developers. I think that if policy merely suggests it, most
> developers will follow the suggestion if it's at all reasonable to do
> so.
I think we should not be sloppy with the wording the Debian policy. We
should write down exactly what we mean, and not something that is subject to
interpretation.
> The practical difference between a suggestion and a recommendation in
> a case like this is effectively nil, IMO.
So why not change it then to make the intention more clear?
(Of course, arguing this way is moot, and I hope you realize the
tnogue-in-cheek here).
> > > 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...
>
> It could be argued that libraries are binaries. "Binary" does not
> necessarily mean "executable". This is semantic quibbling.
You are quibbling. I am pointing out a point of probable misunderstanding.
Again, I would prefer the wording of the Debian policy concise and clear, as
opposed to confusing or vague.
> But I
> agree that this may be a little confusing, and a more general term
> might be an improvement. This seems a reasonable change, possibly
> even a good one, but not really a necessary one. *shrug*
Thanks.
> > Then, the object files must not be stripped. Again, should seems to be too
> > weak.
>
> If the binaries can be debugged in the build directories, then there's
> little reason not to strip them.
That's an assumption that may or not may be met. We should not base our
policy on assumptions. The fact that it is not always possible to debug in
builddir is enough to cover the general case. And, I may want to distribute
packages with debug information to our users, so I can package them and put
them on a web page or CD. Why cut off options without a reason?
> I frequently do 'debian/rules
> build', and debug in place, without worrying about the fact that the
> install rule will strip the binary. Again, I think common sense can
> fill in the gap here.
The Debian policy is what is supposed to fill gaps.
> If there's no easy way to debug a package, one can always file a
> wishlist bug (with patches to fix the problem, preferably).
Filing bug reports as a "solution" to solve a uncertainity in the policy?
I find your response to my mail very weak. Instead trying to push this
proposal through as fast as possible, I would prefer to work out the
problems now, even if they are not big issues for you. We had enough
problems with sloppy parts of the policy in the past (look at the conffile vs
configuration file mess, for example). A few days more or less now don't
matter.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`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
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/
Reply to: