On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 10:44:05PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > I pinger vorlon on this on IRC. He suggested to get in touch with > d-policy for this, explaining why OCaml libraries should be in our > opinion be handled differently than other libraries. I argued with him > that the reason why it is so is that we are talking only about -dev > libraries and hence space on the non-developer user is not wasted. I > haven't yet prepared the mail for -policy though. > > Anyone willing to do so before please step forward, possibly Cc-ing this > list. > > Otherwise I'll do so in the next few days.
In the end it seems to me there's no need for that. According to my reading of the appropriate chapters of the "standard" Debian policy the following apply: - binaries should be stripped per default, with support for DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS for overriding that - *shared* libraries should be stripped - nothing is said about stripping *static* libraries and in fact my tests on the *.a files I have in my /usr/lib/ confirm that *.a are not stripped So, with my tiny change to our policy, we are aligned with the standard policy. Hence, no need to contact -policy. Now it's mass bug reporting time, we need a tool able to recognize if a -dev ocaml library contains debugging information and if not we need to report the bug against the library ... Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
