On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:07:31 +0900 Miles Bader <[email protected]> wrote: > MK <[email protected]> writes: > > If you say so, then I guess I am imagining things ;) I have never > > given the issue much thought until now, I suppose I need to do a bit > > more research on the issue. > > Indeed, it's often a good idea to do the research _before_ posting > flames and rants...
Yes. On the other hand, in my defence, GNU's online docs for make: http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html which I sited earlier after searching for "debugging symbols", do not make a mature attempt to explain the issue at all and instead just use inflammatory phrases like "Users who don't mind being helpless can strip the executables later if they wish," and "Devil-may-care users can use the install-strip target to do that". No further explanation. Is this how I'm supposed to learn about Coding Standards? Via jokes and threats of some inexplicable bogey-man? If every piece of documentation related to this issue is just as flippant and patronizing, maybe it's no surprise I had to learn this in a mail list discussion. On the other hand, if there were even one sentence under "target all" justifying the default, such as, "Debugging symbols do not affect performance, and are not loaded into memory during normal use" instead of offhand references to the Devil, etc, this all could have been avoided. $0.02. Anyway, all apologies and thanks everyone for taking interest and a bit of time with me here. I have been a bit paranoid with the packaging because I want to see things done right, and understand the whys and wherefores. Excuse my previous extraneous paragraphs as "debugging symbols" ;) Lucky I left them in or I'd still be in the dark... -- "The angel of history[...]is turned toward the past." (Walter Benjamin)
