On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 03:14:56PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 01:11:33PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > > > If the binaries can be debugged in the build directories, then there's > > > little reason not to strip them. > > > That's an assumption that may or not may be met. We should not base > > our policy on assumptions. The fact that it is not always possible > > to debug in builddir is enough to cover the general case. And, I may > > want to distribute packages with debug information to our users, so > > I can package them and put them on a web page or CD. > > I think you're getting off the topic here. The goal is to make it so > that the build machines don't have to waste time generating debug info > that they're not going to use.
I would extend this: ... and on the other hand allow users to easily build packages with debug information by following a standard procedure. > Extending this to require that all > packages be able to build as debuggable versions is an entirely > separate proposal, and one I'm not sure we need. I did not say that. But packages which can supporet this should. This is already implicit in the current wording, why change it for no reason? > > Why cut off options without a reason? > > Nothing is being cut off -- there is no requirement to be able to > create debuggable packages in policy at present, nor has anyone > proposed such a requirement. There is already a recommendation to include "-g": "Generally the following compilation parameters should be used: ... CFLAGS = -O2 -g -Wall # sane warning options vary between programs ..." > If we (the project, not individual developers) are not going to > distribute packages with debug info included, I see no reason for > policy to concern itself with the requirement (or even recommendation) > to make it possible to build such packages. This proposal is half baken then. Either we drop the support for debug information completely (which would be a shame), or we do it right and tell maintainers how to implement this support if it is possible and recommend this. To do the last is a win-win situation. We gain faster compiles when no debugging symbols are wanted, and we gain a reliable way to get debug symbols if wanted. I still can't see why you think that it is such a bad idea. You say above that this is not the "goal" of the proposal. Then remove the suggestion about DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS, because it has no place in it. Or you address the issue and do it correctly. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org for public PGP Key [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/
