On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 10:53:54AM -0400, James Antill wrote: > Václav Ovsík <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi, > > thanks for your suggestions first. > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I am not a DD, so I cannot sponsor etc. > >> > >> I checked your package, it builds in pbuilder, is lintian clean and it > >> looks good. Some random remarks: > >> > >> * Linda says: > >> > >> $ linda ustr_1.0.1-1_i386.changes > >> W: libustr-1.0-1; The library libustr is not in a shlibs file. > >> W: libustr-debug-1.0-1; The library libustr-debug is not in a shlibs file. > >> E: libustr-debug-1.0-1; Binary /usr/lib/libustr-debug-1.0.so.1.0.1 > >> contains unneeded section comment. > >> E: libustr-debug-1.0-1; Binary /usr/lib/libustr-debug-1.0.so.1.0.1 is > >> not stripped. > > > > I doubt about worthiness to have `-debug' packages now. Should I exclude > > libustr-debug-1.0-1 and libustr-debug-dev? If someone needs to debug > > ustr, he can build a debug library himself and so have the sources... > > The debug library is more about debugging the applications that use > ustr than the library itself. Some of this is mitigated with malloc > check and USTR1_CHK etc. in 1.0.2, but the debugging library can still > catch a lot of errors that the normal library can't. > > The way I have it setup in Fedora, it's almost a second library so > the libustr package isn't affected (with extra deps. etc.) by the > libustr-debug package existing or not.
My intention was similar, first version of ustr source package builds into: libustr-1.0-1 - Micro string library: shared library libustr-1.0-1-dbg - Micro string library: debugging symbols libustr-dev - Micro string library: development stuff libustr-doc - Micro string library: documentation libustr-debug-1.0-1 - Micro string library: shared library for debugging libustr-debug-dev - Micro string library: development stuff for debugging Last two packages contain debug flavour of ustr. I instructed CDBS to not strip this library, because I thought, that this library is used only for developer to test your application and debug it. I expected, that this flavour of lib is not for production and that no package should depend on it or use it. Lintian checker didn't report any problem there and I didn't run linda on result. There is possibility to fulfill Debian policy or habit by separating symbols into a bit strange looking package libustr-debug-1.0-1-dbg :-). So I can end with branch of packages libustr-debug-1.0-1 libustr-debug-1.0-1-dbg libustr-debug-dev Maybe another approach can be to separate debugging symbols into separate file and include this into libustr-debug-1.0-1. This solution can be only workaround for the linda error report and makes a sence only if the debug library have not a sense without debugging symbols. It seems to me (Makefile), that debug flavour of static library at least must by build if I want to run library checks (make check), so time & resources can't be saved by excluding debug flavour. Q1: Is sufficient libustr-debug.a alone for debugging? That is libustr-debug-dev package remaining only and no shared version. If Q1 reply is no: Q2: Has libustr-debug-1.0.so.1.0.1 a sense without debugging symbols? That is assertions and reports by library are in most cases worth even without further inspection using gdb that can to step into library. Excuse my naive questions please, this is my first Debian package. Regards -- Zito -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
