Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#188731: debian-policy: "strip --strip-unneeded" is
insufficient"):
> Indeed, but the shading will get a lot less useful if it merely
> indicates that there is /some/ common tool that implements the
> requirement. We probably want to res
Hello,
On Sun 28 Oct 2018 at 04:04PM GMT, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Well, more specifically debhelper.
>>
>
> FTR, I would be happy if the solution was not specific to "debhelper" in
> the long term. In particular, there is a world of difference between
> "debhelper", "cdbs with debhelper",
control: tag -1 -patch +pending
Hello,
On Sun 28 Oct 2018 at 03:51PM GMT, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> .. [#]
>> - You might also want to use the options ``--remove-section=.comment``
>> - and ``--remove-section=.note`` on both shared libraries and
>> - executables, and ``--strip-debug`` on
Sean Whitton:
> Hello Niels,
>
> On Sun 28 Oct 2018 at 02:22PM GMT, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
>> I think I agree with your suggestion of shading policy requirements that
>> are already covered by common tools.
>
> Well, more specifically debhelper.
>
FTR, I would be happy if the solution was not
Sean Whitton:
> control: tag -1 +patch
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri 28 Sep 2018 at 05:38AM GMT, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
>> * We now have auto-generated dbgsym packages by dh_strip (which were
>>just an idea when Bill wrote that answer).
>>
>> * Policy mentions "--remove-section=.comment
Hello Niels,
On Sun 28 Oct 2018 at 02:22PM GMT, Niels Thykier wrote:
> I think I agree with your suggestion of shading policy requirements that
> are already covered by common tools.
Well, more specifically debhelper.
> At the moment, I am hesitant as to whether I should second Sean's text
>
Russ Allbery:
> Sean Whitton writes:
>
>> Thank you for following up.
>
>> Here is a minimal patch, for which I am seeking seconds. I didn't
>> include a recommendation to use dh_strip because we generally keep such
>> recommendations in footnotes rather than the text of Policy, and we are
>>
Sean Whitton writes:
> Thank you for following up.
> Here is a minimal patch, for which I am seeking seconds. I didn't
> include a recommendation to use dh_strip because we generally keep such
> recommendations in footnotes rather than the text of Policy, and we are
> trying to reduce the
control: tag -1 +patch
Hello,
On Fri 28 Sep 2018 at 05:38AM GMT, Niels Thykier wrote:
> * We now have auto-generated dbgsym packages by dh_strip (which were
>just an idea when Bill wrote that answer).
>
> * Policy mentions "--remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note" in
>a
On Mon, 11 May 2015 11:18:29 +0200 Bill Allombert
wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:39:43PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 07:24:12PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > Section 11.2 says
> > >
> > > strip --strip-unneeded your-lib
> > This is still true (the
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:18:29AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
So to summary:
Policy 11.2 recommends:
strip --strip-unneeded
dh_strip does:
strip --strip-unneeded --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note
install -s does currently:
strip --strip-unneeded
lintian checks for:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:39:43PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 07:24:12PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Section 11.2 says
strip --strip-unneeded your-lib
This is still true (the section is 10.2 though).
Lintian, however, complains if the sections
On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 07:24:12PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Section 11.2 says
strip --strip-unneeded your-lib
This is still true (the section is 10.2 though).
Lintian, however, complains if the sections .comment or .note are
present, which strip doesn't think are unneeded.
This
13 matches
Mail list logo
