On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 06:47:27PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > That wasn't actually a real objection, more of a comment. I tossed out > another idea, but admitted that it had flaws as well as advantages.
My apologies -- the =debug proposal seemed to me to be overly complex (and rather surprising, to me, given the original concept), so I went in search of messages in support of my point of view, and found http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9909/msg00045.html I was pleased that someone had expressed something of my own reservations -- I thought it good, given your message, not to go over the same point. However, I can accept that you were not really objecting to the proposal. > > [And, personally, I think he has a point: inventing a new mini-language > > to specify CFLAGS=-g doesn't seem to solve any useful problem. But the > > real issue is that I don't see that you have a consensus yet.] > > I'm perfectly willing to have the existing proposal go through. In > fact, the additional abstraction may be a good thing, for packages > which aren't written in C, and don't use -g for debugging. Then again it's at least as easy to provide a DEB_CFLAGS=-g for c programs, and a DEB_FOOFLAGS=--glarg for foo programs. > If you want to object, Raul, you're going to have to do it on your > own. :-) I did. With entirely unexpected results. Then again, it looks like the proposal was solving a non-problem. -- Raul
