On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:56:07 +0100 Laslo Hunhold <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 12:51:14 +0100 > Mattias Andrée <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey Mattias, > > > The -s flag previously called strip(1) on the installed > > file. This patch changes install(1)'s behaviour to > > ignore -s. > > > > Many makefiles use the -s flag, so it has to be > > recognised for compatibility, however it does not have > > to do anything because symbols do not negatively affect > > the functionallity of binaries. > > > > Ignoring -s have the added benefit that the user do not > > need to edit makefiles if they want the symbols that > > are useful for debugging. If the user wants to strip > > away symbols, it can be done manually or automatically > > by the package manager. > > thanks, applied! I favor just not documenting the s-flag > in xinstall.1, but understand both sides of the argument. > We have many examples in sbase, like sort -m, but also as > we can see install -c and others. > > Maybe we can discuss this here. Another alternative would > be to put that in a NOTES section. I really don't want to > see the manpages filled up with ignored options, making > them harder to read. On the other hand, a manpage should > reflect the code and no matter how we put it, we do > handle the c and s flags specially here. > > Cheers > > Laslo > What about adding an IGNORED OPTIONS section after OPTIONS, where it is stated what the ignored options were intended to do, and perhaps a rationale for why it is ignored? This way users can be sure that it is safe to use a flag and that we will not add a behaviour to it in the future that they did not foresee.
pgp9TFQD_MCf0.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
