Bug#825237: RFS: mrpt/1:1.4.0-1 [ITA] [RC]

Hi Sean, Paul, >> I think you should use a suffix other than -dbg because people expect >> -dbg to be detached debugging symbols. > > I would go with either -dbg (slight preference) or -debug. Thanks for the advice! Since -dbg is expected to carry a different content by so many people, I would

Bug#825237: RFS: mrpt/1:1.4.0-1 [ITA] [RC]

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Sean Whitton wrote: > I think you should use a suffix other than -dbg because people expect > -dbg to be detached debugging symbols. I would go with either -dbg (slight preference) or -debug. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Bug#825237: RFS: mrpt/1:1.4.0-1 [ITA] [RC]

* Sean Whitton , 2016-05-27, 17:15: I think you should use a suffix other than -dbg because people expect -dbg to be detached debugging symbols. You could write to debian-de...@lists.debian.org and/or debian-ment...@lists.debian.org to see if anyone is aware of a

Bug#825237: RFS: mrpt/1:1.4.0-1 [ITA] [RC]

Hello, On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:55:07PM +0200, Jose Luis Blanco wrote: > > Based on your description, it sounds like the -g packages might be > > useful for someone. The only question is what you should call the > > binary package. Are you saying that those packages already exist in > >

Bug#825237: RFS: mrpt/1:1.4.0-1 [ITA] [RC]

Hi Sean, >> Now that those -dbg packages have been renamed to -dbgsym, do you >> think it may be a good idea to generate again those debug packages? >> I would be really thankful for any advice regarding "good practices" >> in this sense... > > Based on your description, it sounds like the -g

Bug#825237: RFS: mrpt/1:1.4.0-1 [ITA] [RC]

control: owner -1 ! Dear Jose, On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:06:50PM +0200, Jose Luis Blanco wrote: > Thank you very much for the review, indeed any help is appreciated! No problem! > > You should drop the libmrpt-dbg package, since we now have automatic > > *-dbgsym binary package generation. >

Bug#825237: RFS: mrpt/1:1.4.0-1 [ITA] [RC]

Dear Sean, Thank you very much for the review, indeed any help is appreciated! > You should drop the libmrpt-dbg package, since we now have automatic > *-dbgsym binary package generation. Done (upstream). I wasn't aware of this change. In the past, I provided -dbg packages with a totally

Bug#825237: RFS: mrpt/1:1.4.0-1 [ITA] [RC]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, Since 2008, I have had one very kind mentor taking care of my package "mrpt" (home page [1]), but I have not had any news from him for more than ~1 month, so I thought it would be a good idea to find out if someone else would be