On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 02:19:36AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > Raul, how hard do you want to make it for users to build with debugging > info? Activating a gcc wrapper, changing install and strip. This is > completely unreasonable.
I think I could build you a package which does this for you in a couple hours. However it would be a hack, and it might (or might not) be a problem in an autobuilder environment that needed to support multiple compilers -- depending on exactly how that environment was architected. > Free Software works because people can contribute in finding and > resolving bug reports. It is important that people can easily provide > backtraces from gdb and similar. The harder we make it for our users > to contribute, the less contribution we will get. > > Indeed, I would prefer we had a way to provide a Debian system with > full debugging symbols included. I hope this is possible some day. But > this is not achievable currently, I know. Still, I think we should at > least try. Ok. If we want to have this as a goal then yeah: Ben's proposal doesn't meet this goal. > I hpoe my point is now more clear. I think so: To achieve this goal, you really want two things to happen: (1) You want a way to guarantee that elf executables are built with debugging symbols. [Depreciating the current possibility that they wouldn't be.] (2) You want some way to prevent the executables from being stripped before they're installed on the target system. [Depreciating the current unconditional stripping of debugging symbols from packages.] Since Ben's proposal only touches on compilation -- not package building or installation -- you're only addressing (1) at the moment. Do I have this correct? [And, do you think there'd be a problem waiting on (1) until (2) is being addressed?] -- Raul
