Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What have libc*-dev, gdb, gcc etc. in common with debugging symbols in > checkerlibs? > > When I debug my program it suffices to me to know the problem came in > the call to gets() for instance. I'm not interested in seeing more > details, simply because I expect the library to be okay. Usually I > expect a bug in my software before I consider a buggy libc. > > But if the common feeling is to not do that I can still strip the > libararies myself, you're right. But it'll have to be strip > /usr/i486-linuxchecker/lib/* :-) > > Anyway, with your arguments you could as well ask for libc-dbg to be > fold into libc-dev again as it was earlier on.
Look, it already takes over an hour to compile the checker package and about 300MB of disk space. Then it takes a couple hours to upload the thing. And sometimes I find myself doing this multiple times per week. If I made another version of the package, without debugging symbols on the libraries, it would double the time-and-space effort. I'm *not* going to do this without a good reason. And yours is *not* a good enough reason, to double the effort just so someone can avoid typing `sudo strip /usr/i486-linuxchecker/lib/*'. Checker is for debugging, and if you really want to do debugging, you need those symbols. Like I said before, it's not The Right Thing To Do. I am happy, however, to find that my package is popular enough to spark controversy. :-) -- Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.msu.edu/user/pfaffben PGP key: http://www.msu.edu/user/pfaffben/pgp.html or a keyserver near you Linux: choice of a GNU generation -- Debian GNU/Linux: the only free Linux -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
