On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 08:24:06AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > Ok, this is my last attempt for a crowd pleaser.
I hope not. > This new an improved > proposal should satisfy any and all complaints (as few as they were). This > new proposal has several added features. Unfortunately, I dislike the wording in the new proposal. > If you want users to be able > to rebuild your package with debugging information easily, the suggested > way is to use the ``DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS'' environment variable. This is way to weak, IMHO. First, I think as many packages as possible should allow for this feature, so it should not be "if you want users to be able", but: "if it is possible to build the program with debugging information", so that I have the policy behind me if I file a bug report which implements this change in a package. So, this feature should be optional but strongly recommended. Second, _if_ package implements the feature, it must do it by parsing the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS variable, or we will never get consistency at all. Hence, I think the "the suggested way" is much too weak in this context. > In order to retain this information in the custom built package, the > binaries should not be stripped (either with "install -s" or using the > strip program). First, who says that we talk about binaries? Can we find a more general term like "object files"? There are also libraries... Then, the object files must not be stripped. Again, should seems to be too weak. > NOTE: This should not be how the package is built by > default, it is merely for convenience to users wishing to debug the > programs in the package, or for you as the maintainer to find problems > when bugs are filed against the package. I think this note is unnecessary and can be deleted without substitute. The rest is fine. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org for public PGP Key [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/