Kevin Brown writes: > That may be true, but developers aren't the only ones who might make > use of these files. Anyone who gets a crash in an Ada application > could get a much better traceback (for filing a bug report) with > these files in place than without. > > Independent of the potential issues described below, we should give > some serious thought to including the debugging files with the runtime > package. > > It does bloat the package a bit, though.
The overriding reason is multilib. We will make a separate -dbg package, and we will probably even move the static library to another package, too. Better do it right the first time. [...] > But given that the control file is generated from an m4 master, > changing binary-ada.mk in the required way may be a problem. The > argument to dh_strip will be --dbg-package, and it takes the name of > the target package as its argument. That's a problem because the > package names are generated from the m4 master. [...] The only part of the package name that will change across versions is the version number, and there is a macro in the Makefiles for that: $(GNAT_VERSION). All package names in binary-ada.mk are derived from that macro, and we pass its value to m4 so it generates control from control.m4. So, no problem. See the top 15 lines of binary-ada.mk of you're not convinced. -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
