Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
pochu27 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 4 16:49:32 UTC 2011
On 04/01/11 15:42, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
> On 01/04/2011 04:26 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> With the risk of speaking nonsense (as I haven't been following this thread),
>> I'll say that dh_strip already looks for "nostrip" in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. Not
>> sure why you need to check for it too.
> for those who are not too familiar with Pd:
> Pd(aka puredata) has a large number of 3rd party plugins (so called
> "externals") which are now in the process of being packaged for debian.
> for whatever reasons, Pd's externals (which are simply dlopen()ed
> binaries) have a "non-standard" extension, namely ".pd_linux" rather
> than ".so"
> unfortunately, dh_strip will ignore anything that is not +x (which
> plugins are discouraged to be) _or_ not ending with .so
> therefore, i created a small snippet that will do the stripping for the
> relevant files (basically copying the cmdline from dh_strip for libraries)
Not that I mind that you do that, but you may want to try to send a patch for
dh_strip. If the use case is valid (and it seems valid to me, though the fact
that they name with them foo.pd_linux instead of .so seems quite weird) it may
get accepted. Perhaps as parameter, e.g. dh_strip -I.pd_linux. That way we could
have a DEB_DH_STRIP_INCLUDE option that people can use, and you can do
DEB_DH_STRIP_INCLUDE += .pd_linux in puredata.mk, or something like that.
This might be overkill though, so feel free to not do it ;)
More information about the Build-common-hackers