On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 11:48:48AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > 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.
Yes, and I acknowledge your goal. But I am concerned that people will just drop the -g without replacement, and the rest choose the suggested way or another. What I would like to see is to have some unified way to pass build flags (such as "debug") to the rules file. The DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS seemed to fit the bill, but only if people use it. > > 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. I do. If you can write a rules file to build with debugging symbols, you can use this rules script when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS is set to "debug". Always. If you can write a rules file which compiles without debug symbols, you can even make it possible to use it when "debug" is not set. You just need a simple debian/rules file which parses DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS, and source in the one file if debug is set and the other file if debug is not set. This is even a mathematical proof. I can formalize it for you if needed :) > 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. What I don't understand is what reason there are not to "enforce" it, because you can always comply, there really isn't a problem, and it is opening the door for a standard interface to pass build flags. OTOH, not enforcing it has the chance that people will make up their own methods, and we missed a way for standardization early on. I had this problem with dpkg-architecture: Many packages used "arch=$(shell dpkg-architecture)", which did sorta work until the Hurd port came up. Despite the fact that "--print-architecture" is an undocumented feature and not standardized at all. The result is that many rules script use it, and those scripts are definitive broken on the Hurd. My dpkg-arhcitetcure proposal fixes this situation by providing a standard interface to get the build architecture and make it a requirement. This is a big step forward. In the same way I wanted to see this proposal progress. I was disappointed seeing how little ambitious your proposal ended up to be. > Let's see, I was rude to you how? Thanks for the civil reply. Sorry, I was annoyed. At least I managed to flame without calling names :) Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org for public PGP Key [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/
