Matthias Klose: > On 16.10.19 22:08, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Control: tags -1 moreinfo >> >> Matthias Klose: >>> Control: tags -1 - moreinfo >>> >>> On 29.09.19 11:03, Niels Thykier wrote: >>>> Control: tags -1 moreinfo >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> When would you need to keep these LTO sections (but not use -k to keep >>>> everything)? >>> >>> -k is aliased as --keep-debug, this has nothing to do with LTO >>> sections. Why do you want to blow up the size of a package needing LTO >>> when only LTO is needed? > > sorry, but it feels like you are evading that question.
Honestly, I do not think that question was anything other then rhetorical. But also, the question is irrelevant to whether I am willing to support the extra complexity to support "yet-another-switch" in dh_strip. Either there is a use-case for /optionally/ keeping LTO in a non-trivial amount of special-cases or dh_strip will simply not support the option and will strip LTO symbols unconditionally. Or a third alternative is that the problem degenerates into a variant of #941065/#595810 (in which case the bug will be merged with the relevant bug). ~Niels
