Re: Bug#43787: changed title, and remade the proposed change
Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 01:11:33PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > 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.
I think you're getting off the topic here. The goal is to make it so
that the build machines don't have to waste time generating debug info
that they're not going to use. Extending this to require that all
packages be able to build as debuggable versions is an entirely
separate proposal, and one I'm not sure we need.
> Why cut off options without a reason?
Nothing is being cut off -- there is no requirement to be able to
create debuggable packages in policy at present, nor has anyone
proposed such a requirement.
> > 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 we (the project, not individual developers) are not going to
distribute packages with debug info included, I see no reason for
policy to concern itself with the requirement (or even recommendation)
to make it possible to build such packages.
--
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: