ah! i'm sorry, i've missed your first reply... On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 11:38:54AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > At Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:00:47 +0900, > GOTO Masanori wrote: > > > as packager, i'd like to be able to choose whether or not libc-dbg > > > is required, recommended, suggested or whatever. if libc-dbg virtual > > > package does not exist i have no chance at all. > > > > Which package is it needed? Is recommending libc-dbg valuable for > > users? If there is not, I agree with Jeff's opinion. > > Domenico, any reply with this bug? I think providing libc-dbg does > not make sense. Which package did you want to add libc-dbg? > If you have no object or reply, I'll close this bug.
as libc-dev is already provided to let one ignore the actual libc devel package of all the debian ports, i find logic (and useful) to have a libc-dbg which lets free to not know which -dbg package is provided for the given port. libcurl2-dbg *suggests* libc6-dbg | libc6.1-dbg | libc0.3-dbg. i'd like something like libc6-dbg | libc-dbg as already is for the -dev packages. i suppose the user of libcurl2-dbg might be interested in where things break even if these are in libc. it is not a matter strictly aimed to libc debugging. i find nice having all the debug symbols in place while i'm debugging a program. nothing more. i you don't agree with me feel free to close the report and i'll continue enumerating all the libc -dbg packages. thanks domenico -----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://people.debian.org/~cavok/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50
