Re: Bug#43787: changed title, and remade the proposed change
On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 03:14:56PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
>
> 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.
I agree with you on this to a point. The reason for the addition of the
"debug" option on this proposal is two-fold. One it provides a clear way
of giving our users an "added service". Lot's of our users would like to
be able to easily build debuggable versions of packages. The other is that
it gives us a safe way of saying "you really shouldn't build with -g".
What I mean by that is, if we just say that policy suggests building without
-g, then some package maintainers _will_ implement a way of getting debuggable
binaries (or objects as your may be). We want this implementation to stay
fairly standard, thus the suggested way should be in policy.
Ben
Reply to: