> >>Sorry but I disagree here. For a user who only wants to debug his own
> >>program debugging symbols in the libraries are not needed.
> >
> >Let's take a look at the following program:
[..]
> > gets(buffer);
[..]
> >If you feed it a line that's too long, the access violation will
> >happen deep within the C library. Without debugging symbols, it's
> >hard to know wether this is a bug in the C library (and there
> >could be quite a few :-) or your program.
> True. But I didn't say 'get rid of these symbols'. All I'd like to see
> is the chance for me to install a version without symbols.
But hey, everybody who installes checker has at least a full installation
of gcc, of libc*-dev, gdb, and probably a lot more development tools.
Now, reading the above, certainly *I* want to have the symbols in
those libs, and I am quite sure most people do.
How many people would have enough space on their development system
to install the development tools, but want to econimise badly on
their checker libs?
Creating extra checker packages will
- give everybody who installs debian more work, as they
now have to decide what version of checker to install
(quite a hard choice for a newbie, I'd say).
- give the developper extra work
- give the mirrors more work, make debian even larger
(If you want to do this, why not simply say "strip /usr/lib/*"?
--
joost witteveen, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#!/usr/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
