> On 14 Jan, joost witteveen wrote: > >> > >> Debian Policy Weekly issue #5 : > >> > >> runtime pkg: shared lib stripped with --strip-unneeded > >> develop pkg: static lib stripped with --strip-debug > >> debug pkg: static lib unstripped > > > > I may be _way_ wrong here, but it seems to me that most people that do > > (real) development, also want to debug. So we could make the "debug pkg" > > unneeded by just allowing the develop pkg to contain the debug info. > > (Personally, I don't see much use for static libs without debug info). > > I absolutely object. > People need to install -dev packages mostly because thay are compiling > programs that link some library, and therefore they need the symlink > lib.so -> lib.so.soname and some header files.
Then they don't need the statically linked libaries at all. I don't object too much against what you say, it's just that I don't see any reason to generate static libs without debugging info. > People that wants to create a statically linked program need an archive > library (humm, seems an assertion that needs to be re-checked; it's > historically true, but ... who knows? I'll do some tests trying to > build static executables from shared libs). No, that will not work. Or at least result in sub-optimal code, as the shared libs are compiled with -fPIC, whereas the static ones are not. But how many people want to create statically linked programmes, that don't want to do debugging? As far as I see, more people want debugging than statically linked programmes. But then again, not all people that want debugging info in the libraries. > Instead, the -dbg package, is required only from someone that is > debugging a program linked with that lib, just in case he wants to > debug the library itself, or simply follow/list the lib's flow (in these > cases he also needs the sources). Note that in the libg++ case, you also want the debugging info if you only debug your own programme. Not just when you debug the libraries. > Actually only your libg++ holds shared libs for debugging, (and > installs them on top of /etc/ld.so.conf, which is IMO something not to > be done on a production system :-) Give me a way to do it better, and I'll adopt that. But I don't think there is a better way. And I believe the approach I've taken has been discussed with David Engel (tought I'm not sure any more). >, while all the others (with two > exeptions) have a static archive with a different name (from the one in > the -dev package). But I don't want to have to relink my executable just to be able to debug it. That's why I also want debugging info in the shared libs. > I have already proposed (well, I'm proposing it now :-) to build -dbg > packages in a different way: > > * a shared unstripped lib, compiled with -DDEBUG, with the same > name.soname of the runtime lib, installed in a different dir > (/usr/lib/debug) which *ISN'T* in /etc/ld.so.conf Why should this not be in ld.so.conf? What's your reasoning behind that? Why would I want to install a libarary that I don't want to use? -- joost witteveen, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Potentially offensive files, part 5: /dev/random. `head -c 4 /dev/random` may print 4-letter words (once every approx 4e8 tries).
