Re: Bug#43787: PROPOSAL] changing policy on compiling with -g .. a better way
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 04:47:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org> writes:
>
> > I wondered if anyone else has an opionion on which of these to choose.
> > Either one works for me, but I think the first one is probably needed
> > since some builds just can't be changed sensibly.
>
> It worries me that we're going to become *very* dependent on a
> specific version of make all of a sudden. I've tried fairly hard to
> keep GNUisms out of my rules files (though I won't swear that I've
> succeeded entirely).
That's a good point, but far too late to talk about since our rules files
are cluttered with Gmake'isms already :) Which is ok with me since it's are
only true choice. The thing is though that the examples are GNU'ish, but the
maintainers implementation can be whatever she wants so long as it abides
by env var.
> A simpler (though less comprehensive) solution would be to allow some
> way to pass the -g flag explicitly, through standardized variables.
> Something like:
>
> CC_DEBUG=-g dpkg-buildpackage
This is possible with this setup already:
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=debug dpkg-buildpackage
> There are limitations to this approach; I mention it merely for
> completeness' sake. Otherwise, I prefer the first of Manoj's
> suggestions. It seems simpler, and I'm a big believer in simplicity.
> And Ben's point seems like a good one too.
Noted
Ben
Reply to: