Bug#43787: alternate proposal (was: changed title...)
Hello,
I have written down what I think to be a better proposal, which is based on
Bens but ended up a bit more concise ;). However, I am not asking for seconds.
I hope nobody is offended by this, I just try to be more constructive and
productive. I see considerable progress in this discussion, and I hope Ben
does bear with the -policy crew just a little bit longer :).
This proposal does contain an important bug fix (In you proposal Ben, it
needs to be ifneq instead ifeq). Also, by rearranging the findstring
options, we can check more than one field in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS.
This latter feature is used to introduce a new string "nostrip" to address
Rauls concern.
Last but not least, the wording is different. It says:
"It is recommended to support building the package with debugging information
through the following interface:"
This is of course what I asked for. I believe this wording still allows for
a lot of packages to not implement this feature either because "debug" does
not apply to them or because it is too hard to implement.
I believe that the wording, if carefully read, does not make any packages
instantly "buggy". I also believe that it does allow for packages to
implement other interfaces to switch on debugging information along the
default interface DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. I also believe it allows for extension
It is flexible (because you can choose between no debug information, debug
information, and debug information plus not stripping to build debug
packages).
I think it is therefore a bit better than the current version. Please
comment on this, especially if you find yourself in disagreement with parts
of this draft.
Ben, can we work towards a common proposal?
Thank you,
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: