On 15 Jan, joost witteveen wrote: > > OK, we seem to agree here. It seems you and me don't object too much
In fact we agree a lot (as I have taken most from examining your packages :-); we disagree on the point of the ld.so.conf, and I'm sure I will convince you later :-) > -dev: Only headers, and the ".so -> .so.minor" symlink > -dbg: Eighter static or shared (need to discuss this probably, maybe both) > libs with debugging info. > > This proposal is very different from what we have now, and we really should > discus this before this becomes policy. Humm, it seems to me that we have a lot of libraries following this "policy", and I'm sure I have seen something on the policy docs, ... but I agree that discussion is needed. It is always welcome when is used to bring us somewhere :-) > But to me it seems a waist to > force the static libraries on everybody who just wants to build shared > binaries. I also think that static libs maybe aren't needed anymore, but I am more reluctant to forbit them. Maybe someone could have a good reason to ask for them (maybe security reasons?) I don't know, maybe we can say in the policy that if someone has a good reason to ask for a static lib in some package he simply has to explain and if the reeason is valid the maintainer can add a -static package ... >> >> * 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? >> >> There is no need to force all users on a system to load a debug library >> which is really needed only from _one_ user. > > Please, note that the debugging info is _not_ used/loaded/whatever > if you don't do debugging. Running a programme while using the libs > with debugging info is (as far as I'm aware) excactly as fast, and > uses excactly as much system ram as using the libs without the > debugging info. I remember having read your expalnation about speed of those libs, but, please, reread this quote. If the libs are compiled with -DDEBUG (as I would really ask from a -dbg package) the code will probably have debugging prints conditioned on that define, and this code shouldn't be run as "runtime" on a production environment. > So, the only difference with your proposal: > >> every time you want to use the debug libraries, just do >> >> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib/debug gdb <prog> > > Is that in your case whenever someones starts debugging, those > debugging libraries (code+symbols) are loaded a second time in > memory, whereas in mycase the code always is only once in memory. Well, actually those programs are statically linked, so we have anyway a big advantage. And a debugging session isn't something that a lot of users do all the time, so a doubled library is not so bad. And I'm not really sure that gdb uses the lib already in memory and doesn't reload it again ... Anyway, you have not finished to comment on my proposal: what about having the source? I found that really usefull for debugging purposes, and really amazing the automatism with which you can list libs sources (coming from years of static debugging and "jumps" into the libs assembly (dbx, the AIX debugger lists asm code when he has no sources :-) fabrizio -- | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic | 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E > more than 35 months are needed to get rid of the millennium. [me] >If NT is your answer, means you didn't understand the question.[som1]
