[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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



On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 06:10:06PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> 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.

Why not make the suggestion a requirement. _If_ the package supports
building with debugging symbols, then it has to be implemented by querying
the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS variable.

I see a) no technical reason to allow other procedures to implement this.
      b) Allowing other procedures defeats the purpose of a satndard
         document.

This is why I think a suggestion is too weak. You can equally well remove
the suggestion, because I can't rely on it and have to check always if a
package follows the policy suggestion or does it differently.

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: