> http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/2012-April/028301.html > ... continues at: > http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/2012-April/028322.html > > I take even one person bringing this up on macports-user as an indicator that > there's a bigger need than I would have thought for there to be an easier way > to make builds with debug output and symbols. > > That said I don't think the answer is a default debug variant in base. A base > variant for something that only really is useful for a subset of ports and is > bound to fail spectacularly in some cases and subtly in others feels a bit > like false advertising. Should we ask maintainers to test with the debug > variant as well? They're the ones who will get tickets when there is > something wrong with `install <port> +debug`. > > Consider the user/developer in the macports-users discussion above, if we had > the patch in base for a default debug variant and told him to try that, would > he have gotten what he wanted? > > For my own workflow where I depend on ports as a developer I usually have > those in a local repository to lock down the version and whatever > modifications to the port that I need. Doesn't feel unreasonable to maintain > that myself for something I integrate that deeply with.
>From the other thread: "My perception is that mostly debug builds are to help with the development of the libraries themselves?" There is more to it than that. Code that I write which is built on top of any library built with macports might need to follow a branch into the library, or watch a variable that happens to be set by said library, etc. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
