Re: Bug#43787: changed title, and remade the proposed change
On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 03:14:56PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> 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.
I would extend this:
... and on the other hand allow users to easily build packages with debug
information by following a standard procedure.
> 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.
I did not say that. But packages which can supporet this should.
This is already implicit in the current wording, why change it for no
reason?
> > 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.
There is already a recommendation to include "-g":
"Generally the following compilation parameters should be used:
...
CFLAGS = -O2 -g -Wall # sane warning options vary between programs
..."
> 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.
This proposal is half baken then. Either we drop the support for debug
information completely (which would be a shame), or we do it right and tell
maintainers how to implement this support if it is possible and recommend
this. To do the last is a win-win situation. We gain faster compiles when no
debugging symbols are wanted, and we gain a reliable way to get debug
symbols if wanted.
I still can't see why you think that it is such a bad idea.
You say above that this is not the "goal" of the proposal. Then remove the
suggestion about DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS, because it has no place in it. Or you
address the issue and do it correctly.
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: