Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Strange. I usually debug binaries compiled with -O2 -g, and I've
> never had any problems doing so. How could it be "all but useless"
> for you?
Because -O2 can cause the compiler to reorder instructions, move some
things out of loops, etc. Steppi
Previously Martin Schulze wrote:
> You're right, but the overrides file and the control file should be in
> sync, otherwise it won't make sense to have the - not used anyway - priority
> listed in the control file. Thus I assume that the ftp masters notice
> when priorities mismatch and can react.
Joseph Carter wrote:
> Even -O -g is all but useless. For epic, I am building -O2 -Wall and -g
> -Wall versions. In fact, I'm packaging them both too. epic4-dbg will
> divert epic4's bins. I thought about alternatives, but diversions of
> just the bins seems more right logically.
Strange. I u
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Brian White wrote:
> Thus, if you can do it just by causing the "Packages" file to be generated
> with the new priorities (which I believe you can), then it's okay by me.
> And, since it's easy to test just by doing a diff between the old and
> new "Packages" files, the chance
> > A priority change is not changing "too much", it does not require to
> > compile any package, and it does not make the package to be in another
> > section (i.e. another directory), so not even automatic upgrade scripts
> > would be confused about it.
>
> I agree with you. (Wow, you should ma
Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > If the dependency rule is to be considered "distribution-wise", ncurses3.4
> > > may not be made optional in a certain release until all the packages of
> > > standard or higher priorities have been recompiled in the same release.
> >
> > Which means that when uploading
Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Regarding slink, it is not released yet. Is there a reason why we should
> > > not try to have correct priorities for slink? (You seem to imply that
> > > priorities in slink should not be fixed, I w
On Sun, 21 Feb 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> >
> > If the dependency rule is to be considered "distribution-wise", ncurses3.4
> > may not be made optional in a certain release until all the packages of
> > standard or higher priorities have been recompiled in the same relea
On Sun, 21 Feb 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Regarding slink, it is not released yet. Is there a reason why we should
> > not try to have correct priorities for slink? (You seem to imply that
> > priorities in slink should not be fixed, I would call *that* a "new
> > theor
On Sun, Feb 21, 1999 at 01:47:11PM +0100, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> > >- The installed binary is stripped and fully optimized.
> > >- It's easy to get an unstripped binary: just run debian/build,
> > > no makefile tinkering necessary.
> > >- The unstripped binary is useful for debu
10 matches
Mail list logo
