Jakub Wilk <jw...@debian.org> writes:
> As far as I can tell, the Policy currently doesn't require stripping
> static libraries[0]. The de facto standard is to strip them with
> --strip-debug, because this what dh_strip does[1].
> Can we make stripping static libraries a Policy “should”?
> [0] The only reference I could find was footnote to §10.2: “You might also
> want to use […] ‘--strip-debug’ on static libraries.” This is a bit odd
> though, because the footnote applies to a paragraph which talks only about
> stripping shared libraries.
> [1] More specifically, dh_strip calls “strip --with-debug” on all files
> matching “lib*.a”, except those ending with “_g.a”.
This seems like a good idea to me. Here is proposed text.
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 4fd60d9..eb79db6 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -7783,9 +7783,12 @@ strip --strip-unneeded <var>your-lib</var>
You might also want to use the options
<tt>--remove-section=.comment</tt> and
<tt>--remove-section=.note</tt> on both shared libraries
- and executables, and <tt>--strip-debug</tt> on static
- libraries.
+ and executables.
</footnote>
+ All installed static libraries should be stripped with
+ <example compact="compact">
+strip --strip-debug <var>your-lib</var>
+ </example>
</p>
<p>
Does Lintian already check for unstripped static libraries?
Separately, I'd love it if someone would tackle writing a new section on
how to properly generate and package detached debugging symbols for
executables and shared libraries and propose that wording as a new Policy
bug.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r4wqokdp....@windlord.stanford.edu
