Bug#43787: well, here it is: alternate proposal (was: changed title...)
On 11-Sep-99, 19:44 (CDT), Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
> > While I don't feel a real strong objection, I don't think this kind of
> > stuff (rationale) belongs in the standard. It's already wordy enough.
>
> Well, it is not without precedence. For a lot of things in the policy, we
> also give the rationale behind it.
>
> I think it only appears wordy because the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS syntax is
> explained at lengths.
Sorry, I should have quoted exactly what I was (mildly) objecting to:
The three line "why debugging symbols are good" paragraph. I'm happy
with the rest of the proposal.
Reply to: