"Fabrizio" == Fabrizio Polacco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> We could let the -dev versions of packages have diversions of the >> libraries to unstripped versions, and have the runtime versions >> have stripped versions.
Interesting idea. I can't say I'm completely clear on what the status quo is for this. > Since most of the times -dev packages are needed to compile only > (headers and the symlink from lib.so), I think it'd be better to put > unstripped libraries on a separate -dbg package (as lib_d.a). Those > libs are easily 10 times the size. > Usually we have: runtime pkg: shared lib stripped with > --strip-unneeded develop pkg: static lib stripped with --strip-debug > debug pkg: static lib unstripped The use of strip on shared libraries, and the exact flags to give strip (which is indeed --strip-uneeded), are stipulated in the Debian Policy Manual (v2.3.0.1, Sec 3.3.2), and also there it states that a separate package should be provided for debugging versions of the library. > I'm not sure on what to do for shared unstripped libs (are they > supported by gdb, now?) Any debian package which has non-compliant libraries installed should have a bug reported against them. .....A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/> -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
