On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 11:52:54PM +0100, James Troup wrote: > Yes, but it's complete and utter crap; it was then and still is now. > Ben ran a buildd on vore which is one of the faster buildds, but I've > run both vore and some of our slower (arm, m68k) buildds and I can > guarantee you that the additional time incurred by using '-g' is so > insignificant it's insulting to have to even discuss it. > > The whole -g thing really ought to be fixed; it snuck in AFAICS/R > bypassing the proper policy procedure, and is, in any event, entirely > bogus. I concur with not forcing maintainers to omit -g. I'd concur with strongly recommending including it, in fact. I don't omit it with XFree86 and I'll be damned if I'm about to start. It's too convenient to be able to hop into my build tree and send someone an unstripped binary with debugging symbols. I'm not giving that up without a fight. I don't have a strong opinion on what -O should be. Simply being able to get a worthwhile backtrace from a core file is so many light years ahead of what we currently support by default (and what Policy purports to mandate) that arguing over the relative merits of stepi versus nexti seems insignificant to me. (BTW, someone's mailer is a complete piece of crap. What the F is up with mangling the subject line like that?) -- G. Branden Robinson | You don't just decide to break Debian GNU/Linux | Kubrick's code of silence and then branden@debian.org | get drawn away from it to a http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | discussion about cough medicine.
Attachment:
pgpu8IPpt98Rp.pgp
Description: PGP signature