Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Kevin Brown writes: > > That may be true, but developers aren't the only ones who might make > > use of these files. Anyone who gets a crash in an Ada application > > could get a much better traceback (for filing a bug report) with > > these files in place than without. > > > > Independent of the potential issues described below, we should give > > some serious thought to including the debugging files with the runtime > > package. > > > > It does bloat the package a bit, though. > > The overriding reason is multilib. We will make a separate -dbg > package, and we will probably even move the static library to another > package, too. Better do it right the first time.
Yeah, I'm all for that. I just wasn't sure how hard it would be. > The only part of the package name that will change across versions is > the version number, and there is a macro in the Makefiles for that: > $(GNAT_VERSION). All package names in binary-ada.mk are derived from > that macro, and we pass its value to m4 so it generates control from > control.m4. So, no problem. See the top 15 lines of binary-ada.mk of > you're not convinced. OK, this should (hopefully) be relatively easy then. It takes a number of hours for the package to build on my box, so it'll take some time for me to make the changes and debug them. -- Kevin Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
