On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 08:14:36PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 11:20:48AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > "You have to implement debugging this way if you are going to > > support it". Two reasons: > > > > 1) Right now policy does not require -g, but only suggests an > > example, yet everyone is compilg this way. I don't think our > > developers have to be forced into every possible detail of > > packaging. Who knows, with the option to do it differently, > > some one may find a better way. Also, with a suggest, you can > > always file a wishlist bug to the affect if you want. So they > > can support either form (their own and the suggested one in > > policy). > > Your proposal was concerned about autobuilders. It would be great to have an > autobuuilder someday which produces packages with debugging symbols. Only a > common interface can make this possible.
No my proposal is because of the autobuilder, not aimed at making it better. The point is to get out the -g suggestion from polic while still giving a prefered way of getting the debug info. > > The main point being, that most developers _want_ to be standard > > and will not want to go the extra mile of implementing something > > completely different than policy suggests that wont get used. > > Then we can make it mandatory just as well. Then we can not make it mandatory as well, the arguments are the same. > > 2) Perhaps there is no way for that maintainers package to comply > > exactly with the details of the requirement. > > Erm. _If_ you can support building with debugging information, you can > make it possible to activate it with parsing DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. > How can this ever be not true? You can't think of an example because there > is non. Probalby you are misunderstanding what my preferred requirements > would be. You don't know this for sure. > > Also there may be different cases of what debugging actually is in > > a package. Perhaps it is a set of scripts, that when generated normally > > strips out some of the debug code, but can also be generated with the > > debug code. We don't know, so we can't force this. > > You are missing my point. My concerns are only about the interface, not > under which circumstances the support should be implemented (we all want it > to happen in as many cases as possible), and not about the way it is > implemented (CFLAGS=-g, or whatever). > > > This proposal has clear advantages (as others have admitted) > > In my eyes, it has not an advantage, but disadvantages. First, we will > probably get less support for building with debugging info because it is not > the default anymore and adding the interface is not encouraged anymore. This > will give a small compile time increase at the cost of making it harder for > users to get packages with debug information. > > I wthdraw my second. I don't object to your proposal, although I find it > suboptimal at least. Instead, I'll probably raise another proposal somewhat > later. Obviously, in the current atmosphere here I can't get my point > across. Sorry to see you take this to that extreme. I'm voicing my opinion. If I feel that there is speific agreement that it _should_ be forced instead of suggested, I'll be more than happy to comply and change the proposal. Right now, I don't see any agreement that this is what most want. > > Fortunately, this one will > > atleast be able to back out easily because it is non-obtrusive to how we > > currently > > do things (we still get stripped packages without changes). > > Oh how great. This is really a great proposal of you, that accomplishes such > a difficult goal. Let's see, I was rude to you how? Thanks for the civil reply. Ben
