At Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:36:03 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > At Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:19:22 +0100, > > Miroslaw Kwasniak wrote: > > > Please move sprof from libc6-prof to libc6-dev or even to libc6. > > > It's precious even without lib*_p.a. > > > > Why? We everytime need concrete reason to change something like this > > because libc6 affects a lot of packages. > > > > I guess it is just historical reason to have separate package > > libc6-prof, but I also think there's no strong reason to move it to > > libc6. > > > > Again, we need concrete reason. If you don't have reasons, I will not > > touch to change libc6-prof, and close this wishlist. > > Huh? Goto, please think about bugs before flaming them. Let's look at > the description of libc6-prof:
I don't have any intention to flame it, and I don't flame with it - if you feel so, it's over-thinking or I'm sorry my English is not just good to bring to you. I just want to know "why". I think it's important to listen to the original submitters intention. > Description: GNU C Library: Profiling Libraries > Static libraries compiled with profiling info (-pg) suitable for use > with gprof. > > libc6-prof exists to hold the _p libraries, because they are very large > and almost no one wants them. sprof is not a static library suitable > for use with gprof. In fact, it's only usable on shared libraries, so > forcing people to install the profiling libraries to get it doesn't > make much sense! > > I think this would be a great change to make. I second it to move from libc6-prof to libc6-dev (not libc6). It needs additional conflicts (like moving getconf from libc6-dev to libc6), we should do in the next update. Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
