On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 10:06:42AM -0400, James Antill wrote: > Václav Ovsík <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 10:53:54AM -0400, James Antill wrote: > > > > My intention was similar, first version of ustr source package builds > > into: > > > > libustr-1.0-1 - Micro string library: shared library > > libustr-1.0-1-dbg - Micro string library: debugging symbols > > libustr-dev - Micro string library: development stuff > > libustr-doc - Micro string library: documentation > > > > libustr-debug-1.0-1 - Micro string library: shared library for debugging > > libustr-debug-dev - Micro string library: development stuff for debugging > > > > Last two packages contain debug flavour of ustr. I instructed CDBS to > > not strip this library, because I thought, that this library is used > > only for developer to test your application and debug it. I expected, > > that this flavour of lib is not for production and that no package > > should depend on it or use it. Lintian checker didn't report any problem > > there and I didn't run linda on result. > > > > There is possibility to fulfill Debian policy or habit by separating > > symbols into a bit strange looking package libustr-debug-1.0-1-dbg :-). > > So I can end with branch of packages > > > > libustr-debug-1.0-1 > > libustr-debug-1.0-1-dbg > > libustr-debug-dev > > > > Maybe another approach can be to separate debugging symbols into > > separate file and include this into libustr-debug-1.0-1. This solution > > can be only workaround for the linda error report and makes a sence only if > > the debug library have not a sense without debugging symbols. > > > > It seems to me (Makefile), that debug flavour of static library at least > > must by build if I want to run library checks (make check), > > so time & resources can't be saved by excluding debug flavour. > > > > Q1: Is sufficient libustr-debug.a alone for debugging? That is > > libustr-debug-dev package remaining only and no shared version. > > Yes, it's sufficient, indeed it's unlikely that people will want to > run full time with the debugging library (where shared libraries have > an advantage). > The main reason for shipping one is... > > Fedora packaging requires shared libraries (even going so far as to > require separate packages for static libraries), so I included the > shared debugging lib. to keep the peace :) > > ...it's also there if people do what it, but that's more a > rationalization after the fact than anything else.
Great! I have removed all -debug packages. Static debug library is now included in libustr-dev. Things are a bit cleaner now. I have uploaded new package and I'm going to send updated RFS here. Thanks -- Zito -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]