Re: Why -g flag?

1999-02-19 Thread Richard Braakman
Shaleh wrote: > Also, we are using -g and -O2 on quite a few -- which is practically useless. No, debugging a program compiled with -O2 works quite well. Sometimes the flow of control jumps around unexpectedly, that's all. > -g is nice for testing, but daily apps are not benefitting that much.

Re: Why -g flag?

1999-02-19 Thread Erick Kinnee
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 11:37:51AM -0500, Shaleh wrote: > Also, we are using -g and -O2 on quite a few -- which is practically useless. > > -g is nice for testing, but daily apps are not benefitting that much. > Also, if you use debhelper doesn't debian/rules contain dh_strip? So maybe we shoul

RE: Why -g flag?

1999-02-19 Thread Shaleh
Also, we are using -g and -O2 on quite a few -- which is practically useless. -g is nice for testing, but daily apps are not benefitting that much.

Why -g flag?

1999-02-19 Thread Julian Gilbey
Looking at the policy, section 4.1, it seems that Debian encourages building packages with the -g comilation flag. But although that gives the advantage of debugging information where necessary, it makes the binaries significantly bigger, sometimes very much so. I'm not clear on one point in the

Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-02-19 Thread Santiago Vila Doncel
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Jules Bean wrote: > IMO, it is Brian who should decide between the three courses for slink: > > a) Ship with broken priorities > b) Reupload packages which depend on ncurses > c) Fix priorities > > To that extent, then, it seems reasonable that the bug be 'important', > sinc

Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-02-19 Thread Jules Bean
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Jules Bean wrote: > > > On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > > > Please note that policy says: > > > > > >Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values. If > > >this should happen, one of

Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-02-19 Thread Santiago Vila Doncel
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Jules Bean wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > Please note that policy says: > > > >Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values. If > >this should happen, one of the priority values will have to be > >adapted. > > > > It d

Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-02-19 Thread Jules Bean
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 06:37:33PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > Well, apparently the ftp.debian.org maintainers disagree. > > > > > > In slink, the info package is important, but depends on ncurses3.

Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-02-19 Thread Santiago Vila
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 06:37:33PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Well, apparently the ftp.debian.org maintainers disagree. > > > > In slink, the info package is important, but depends on ncurses3.4 which > > is optional. > > info should be recompiled

Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-02-19 Thread Joseph Carter
On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 06:37:33PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > Well, apparently the ftp.debian.org maintainers disagree. > > In slink, the info package is important, but depends on ncurses3.4 which > is optional. info should be recompiled. =p -- "There are 3 things to remember about being a