On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 02:45:19PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 09:24:06PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > (2) You want some way to prevent the executables from being stripped
> > before they're installed on the target system. [Depreciating the current
> > unconditional stripping of debugging symbols from packages.]
> Yes. Along the same lines as (1).
Erm. I hope by this that you mean "encouraging everybody to make
packages buildable either with or without debugging symbols", rather
than "deprecating that packages be built without debugging symbols
or stripped".
> > Since Ben's proposal only touches on compilation -- not package building
> > or installation -- you're only addressing (1) at the moment.
Erm, what?
To my understanding,
# DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=debug debian/rules binary
will produce a .deb with full debugging information if the option's
supported. In particular, consider the paragraph:
] 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). NOTE: This should not be how the package is built by
] default, it is merely for convenience to users wishing to debug the
] programs in the package, or for you as the maintainer to find problems
] when bugs are filed against the package.
> > Do I have this correct?
> Yes.
What am I missing?
> > [And, do you think there'd be a problem waiting on (1) until (2) is
> > being addressed?]
> Ah yes. Thanks for reminding me of (2). It is indeed true that it is not
> adresses at all yet.
?
> But Ben should probably take out the interface suggestion until we have
> thought about it a bit longer. Raul, do you have any ideas about a clean
> interface? What's better than a DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS variable in your view?
Ben's found something he's happy with, thought it through and written a
proposal. If you want something better, the onus is on you to come up with
it, rather than demand that Ben satisfy your every whim. It'd be nice if
you at least made a *guess* at what would work.
For example: "Well, we've got an options setting now, why don't we have,
say:
debug -- build with debugging information
nostrip -- don't strip binaries
? Then when you're building packages normally, you can have "debug"
set in your environmnet, and get the current behaviour, and if you want
debuggable binaries, you set "nostrip" as well."
I think just a single "debug" option is more convenient, though,
personally.
Two other random things: I don't see the point in worrying about different
cases. It's much easier to just require it to be 'debug' all in lower case,
and not worry about it. Also, I preferred the `stronger' proposals, that
said "this is the way to go...... but if you really don't want to you
don't have to".
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgphUNM0lCQFu.pgp
Description: PGP signature