On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 09:51:05PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I'm not quite clear from the bug logs what the final agreed wording is
> > for this proposal. Please could you let me know?
>
> I don't know that we ever reached a consensus on this proposal. Or rather we
> almo
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I'm not quite clear from the bug logs what the final agreed wording is
> for this proposal. Please could you let me know?
I don't know that we ever reached a consensus on this proposal. Or rather we
almost did, and then it devolved into many little arguments.
--
see shy j
I'm not quite clear from the bug logs what the final agreed wording is
for this proposal. Please could you let me know?
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian
Ben Collins wrote:
> Ahh, can you make sure that dh_strip doesn't actually do anything if
> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"? :)
Yes, once it's in policy.
--
see shy jo
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 10:49:44AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 02:36:37PM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
> > >
> > > > build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
> > >
> > > Is that a GNU make feature that you can set vars at the place where a
> > > dependency i
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 02:36:37PM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
> >
> > > build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
> >
> > Is that a GNU make feature that you can set vars at the place where a
> > dependency is expected?
>
> At least it works with GNU make, and it's documented in
> > It worries me that we're going to become *very* dependent on a
> > specific version of make all of a sudden.
>
> Why? Where? The only thing that's GNU make specific is the variable
> defintion as a dependency, i.e. the suggested implementation of the
> build-debug target. But that's only a rec
> It worries me that we're going to become *very* dependent on a
> specific version of make all of a sudden.
Why? Where? The only thing that's GNU make specific is the variable
defintion as a dependency, i.e. the suggested implementation of the
build-debug target. But that's only a recommendation
> This is the final form (or, at least, I am done with this). I am
> forwarding this to bugs.debian.org
My ok again for the second variant.
Roman
> Should these packages built with BUILD_DEBUG turned on have a
> different name (i.e. libgtk1.2-dbg) than the standard packages? Is
> there an easy way to do this other than replicating control file
> entries?
Hmm... I'd say they shouldn't. They have the same functionality as the
non-debug packa
> Umm, since the intent is not to make the old way of doing things
> incorrect, we can do one of two things. Here are psuedo patches that
> detail the approaches. (I personally prefer the second approach).
The second one looks fine (except some typos).
Roman
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 04:47:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > A simpler (though less comprehensive) solution would be to allow some
> > way to pass the -g flag explicitly, through standardized variables.
> > Something like:
> >
> > CC_DEBUG=-g dpkg-
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 04:47:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I wondered if anyone else has an opionion on which of these to choose.
> > Either one works for me, but I think the first one is probably needed
> > since some builds just can't be changed
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wondered if anyone else has an opionion on which of these to choose.
> Either one works for me, but I think the first one is probably needed
> since some builds just can't be changed sensibly.
It worries me that we're going to become *very* dependent on
Ok, reformated Manoj's great work. Only change being DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
instead of just BUILD_OPTIONS.
I wondered if anyone else has an opionion on which of these to choose.
Either one works for me, but I think the first one is probably needed
since some builds just can't be changed sensibly.
Ben
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 04:18:55PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> Looks like this proposal may be turning into a complete subsection on
> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS :)
Yeah, why not.
> Makes sense to do this. Since Manoj says the last diff was his last attempt at
> it, I'll rewrite it to include this and
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 10:32:54PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 01:39:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>
> > + build-debug: BUILD_OPTIONS=debug
>
> I suggest
>
> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
>
> for avoiding namespace collision and more importantly for consistency with
>
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 01:39:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> + build-debug: BUILD_OPTIONS=debug
I suggest
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
for avoiding namespace collision and more importantly for consistency with
the dpkg-architecture handling.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debia
Hi,
This is the final form (or, at least, I am done with this). I
am forwarding this to bugs.debian.org
manoj
The minimal change:
==
CC = gcc
CFLAGS = -O2 -g -Wall # sane warning opti
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 01:39:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> + BUILD_OPTIONS, which, if set to `debug', would cause
What about "BUILD_OPTIONS, which, if it contains `debug', would cause"
This let's you string options like:
BUILD_OPTIONS=debug static
In the near future :)
Ben
Hi,
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> Isn't strip still necessary/desirable?
I guess. Well, here is the version with your suggestions
incorporated.
The minimal change:
==
CC = gcc
This one looks good, and is exactly what I had in mind. Thanks :)
Ben
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 11:41:17AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The second way: we don't just offer an alternative, we
> deprecate the old method, but let it be still legal.
> ==
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 09:55:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The second way: we don't just offer an alternative, we
> deprecate the old method, but let it be still legal.
> ==
> CC = gcc
> - CFLAGS
Hi,
>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> I like this one, but I don't think that "build-debug" target
Ben> should be used as an alternative since it gives two ways of
Ben> doing this and the use will still need to look at the rules file
This happens not to be the cas
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 09:11:29AM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> Here's a question:
>
> Should these packages built with BUILD_DEBUG turned on have a different
> name (i.e. libgtk1.2-dbg) than the standard packages? Is there an
> easy way to do this other than replicating control file entries?
T
Here's a question:
Should these packages built with BUILD_DEBUG turned on have a different
name (i.e. libgtk1.2-dbg) than the standard packages? Is there an
easy way to do this other than replicating control file entries?
--
Brought to you by the letters G and Z and the number 18.
"What's differ
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 09:55:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The second way: we don't just offer an alternative, we
> deprecate the old method, but let it be still legal.
> ==
> CC = gcc
> - CFLAGS
Hi,
Umm, since the intent is not to make the old way of doing
things incorrect, we can do one of two things. Here are psuedo
patches that detail the approaches. (I personally prefer the second
approach).
First, the minimal change::
=
> I was thinking more along the lines of "you should use -g in the
> default build, unless you provide a build that honors
> BUILD_DEBUG=y".
>
> This keeps us from forcing current packages to move to this, in the
> even that it may be downright insane to modify the build in this
> way.
Hmm... I
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 11:48:54AM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
> May I come up with a wording proposal?
>
> CC = gcc
> - CFLAGS = -O2 -g -Wall # sane warning options vary between programs
> + CFLAGS = -O2 -Wall # sane warning options vary between programs
> LDFLAG
> However, have you looked at the cost of this proposal? This entails
> that one massage upstream Makefiles (or several Makefiles) to take
> not of an environment variable to add debugging flags. That is more
> difficult than a static, one time edit of the Makefiles involved to
> add the -g and th
> I think I like this. One can then set the variable, and do
> dpkg-buildpackage, or even use a build daemon to build a whole set
> of debuggable packages, should the need arise.
Yep.
> One can still suggest that a two line addition
> build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
> build-debug: bui
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:44:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ben> As a buildd admin, I want to congratulate the original policy on
> Ben> all the wasted cpu cycles it has cost my system by forcing
> Ben> packages to compile wit
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 06:09:26PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think sticking with an env will make it much easier for some one to just
> > use dpkg-buildpackage (without modification) and call it like:
> >
> > BUILD_DEBUG=y && dpkg-buildpackage -B
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think sticking with an env will make it much easier for some one to just
> use dpkg-buildpackage (without modification) and call it like:
>
> BUILD_DEBUG=y && dpkg-buildpackage -B
Just a minor nit. That should be:
BUILD_DEBUG=y dpkg-buildpackage -B
Hi,
>>"Roman" == Roman Hodek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
Roman> Is that a GNU make feature that you can set vars at the place where a
Roman> dependency is expected?
Yes.
File: make.info, Node: Target-specific, Next: Pattern-specific, Prev: Enviro\
nmen
Hi,
>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> As a buildd admin, I want to congratulate the original policy on
Ben> all the wasted cpu cycles it has cost my system by forcing
Ben> packages to compile with -g even though those same binaries will
Ben> be stripped later of this cost
Hi,
>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No. Just set up the regular build target so that it honours the setting
>> of BUILD_DEBUG and add this to debian/rules:
>>
>> build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
>> build-debug: build
>>
>> You can use other make variables of course.
Ben
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 02:36:37PM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
>
> > build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
>
> Is that a GNU make feature that you can set vars at the place where a
> dependency is expected?
At least it works with GNU make, and it's documented in the node
"Target-specific Variable Values" of
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 07:27:35AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> I think sticking with an env will make it much easier for some one to just
Of course. I just wanted to point out that it is possible to avoid code
duplication even in a Makefile :-)
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 02:55:18PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 11:51:46AM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
> > And since the build targets of contain a lot
> > of commands, a second build-debug target often will mean to double
> > most of these commands.
>
> No. Just s
> build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
Is that a GNU make feature that you can set vars at the place where a
dependency is expected?
Roman
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 11:51:46AM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
> And since the build targets of contain a lot
> of commands, a second build-debug target often will mean to double
> most of these commands.
No. Just set up the regular build target so that it honours the setting
of BUILD_DEBUG and add
>
> The package can by default build without -g if it also provides a mechanism
> to easily be rebuilt with debugging information. This can be done by providing
> a "build-debug" make target, or allowing the user to specify "BUILD_DEBUG=yes"
> in the environment while compiling that packa
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 06:25:52PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> The package can by default build without -g if it also provides a mechanism
> to easily be rebuilt with debugging information. This can be done by providing
> a "build-debug" make target, or allowing the user to specify "BUILD_DEBUG=yes
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 06:25:52PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> The package can by default build without -g if it also provides a mechanism
> to easily be rebuilt with debugging information.
Well, that rules out X. :)
(Nothing you do with the X source tree is ever both easy and fast.)
--
G. Bra
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 43787 debian-policy
Bug#43787: [PROPOSAL] changing policy on compiling with -g .. a better way
Bug reassigned from package `policy' to `debian-policy'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistan
Second.
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 06:25:52PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> The package can by default build without -g if it also provides a mechanism
> to easily be rebuilt with debugging information. This can be done by providing
> a "build-debug" make target, or allowing the user to specify "BUIL
As a buildd admin, I want to congratulate the original policy on all the wasted
cpu cycles it has cost my system by forcing packages to compile with -g even
though those same binaries will be stripped later of this costly debugging
information.
Now, what I want to propose, is not a change so much
50 matches
Mail list logo
