Ben Collins wrote:
> The nostrip check needs to be inside the debug check. Because of you are
> not compiling with debugging turned on, there's no reason to not strip the
> binaries. So (note, the blank should go first):
Wow, you almost overloaded my negation parser there.
BTW, the paragraph in policy about DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS is poorly worded
and has some grammatical problems. I've marked the parts that got on my nerves.
Debugging symbols are useful for error diagnosis, investigation of
core dumps (which may be submitted by users in bug reports), or
testing and developing the software. Therefore it is recommended to
support building the package with debugging information through the
following interface: If the environment variable `DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS'
contains the string `debug', compile the software with debugging
information (usually this involves adding the `-g' flag to `CFLAGS').
This allows to generate a build tree with debugging information. If
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the environment variable `DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS' contains the string
`nostrip', do not strip the files at installation time. This allows
^^^^^^^^^^^
to generate a package with debugging information included. The
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
following makefile snippet is only an example how to test for either
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
condition: [1]
I think that should be "This allows <something>". And "example how to test" is
missing an "of".
There are also format errors in the .txt version of policy in bulletted list
in the rationalle.
> Also, I think Joey is likely to add nostrip detection to dh_strip, which
> means for packages that use that, they wont need to detect the nostrip
> option.
Done.
--
see shy jo
