Re: [gentoo-dev] Split ELF Debug (defult or not?)

[Spider (D.m.D. Lj.)]

On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 12:50 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> probably in portage-2.0.54 a patch will be added to emit split debug
> info. Having a split debug allows us to retain all the advantages of
> stripping executables while gaining the ability to properly debug
> executables in bfd aware programs. It's been in testing with a small
> hand full of devs and works quite well, but before it's pushed in we
> would like to get input from our devs & users.
>
> Would you be willing to give up space in $ROOT/usr/lib/debug for ELF
> executables by default in order to aid in better debugging by or do we
> want to only emit it when a FEATURE= is defined.
>
> Having a split debug pretty much obsoletes the need to add nostrip to
> your features in order to get debug info.
>
> Users wishing to not have debug info can simply add
> INSTALL_MASK="/usr/lib/debug ${INSTALL_MASK}" to make.conf or the
> environment unless we make it FEATURE based.
>
> I'm in favor of it enabled per default but I'd like to know what you
> think and why. (advantages of on/off by default etc..)
>
> Anybody wanting to test or make use of this feature right away can grab
> a copy of my prepstrip from
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/portage_misc/prepstrip and save it to
> /usr/lib/portage/bin/prepstrip or patch portage with
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/patch_overlay/sys-apps/portage/portage-2.0.53_rc7-prepstrip.patch
> It requires you merge pax-utils for the scanelf util.
>


I would certainly like this as on by default, and controlled via
INSTALL_MASK rather than a FEATURE.



(Although I'd have to rebuild my complete system, since I do have it all
with debug-symbols enabled ;)

//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end