Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Olivier Crete <tester@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] stripping implementation in portage
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:04:30
Message-Id: 1124819926.12024.80.camel@cocagne.max-t.internal
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] stripping implementation in portage by Brian Harring
1 On Tue, 2005-23-08 at 12:40 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
2 > First, sidenote (mild ot to this thread also), pardon the dupe posts,
3 > thick fingered typing dumping an old message :)
4 >
5 > On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 01:34:33PM -0400, Olivier Crete wrote:
6 > > On Tue, 2005-23-08 at 11:16 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
7 > > > As an aside to this. Does anyone know how debug information can be changed
8 > > > to have a different basedir. My idea was to create a "custom" strip
9 > > > wrapper that would create external debugging files (like now possible
10 > > > with gdb/binutils) and point them to a location
11 > > > in /usr/src/packagenameplusversion. For that it would be necessary to in
12 > > > some way hack the source location in the debug information.
13 > >
14 > > There is already a patch [1] in bugzilla that does that.. And in bonus
15 > > to keeping the debug files (currently in <libpath>/.debug/libname.so.dbg
16 > > but that can be changed) . It can also keep the source files
17 > > in /usr/src/debug so they can loaded by gdb (pretty useful when
18 > > debugging into libraries).
19 > >
20 > > It creates 3 new features, keepdebug, keepdebugbin and keepsources
21 > Would rather implement those as filters as described above; short
22 > version is that features is chunked up in the rewrite, so it's options
23 > on the component you're configuring moreso. That said, still will map
24 > from old make.* to new format (on the fly, no forced config upgrades),
25 > but I'd rather see it implemented as I've proposed.
26 >
27 > Reasoning is that if you build with debugging crap on, you've got
28 > maximal flexibility in your choice of what your binpkgs/vdb winds up
29 > with.
30 >
31 > Thoughts/yay/nays?
32
33 I havent looked at your new implementation (does it exist).. but yea
34 what you wrote seems to make sense... except that I keep the source code
35 too.. so it would bloat binary packages.. I think it should be done
36 before the packages are made.. or maybe use separate debug and have
37 separate debug packages like RedHat does.
38
39 --
40 Olivier CrĂȘte
41 tester@g.o
42 Gentoo Developer
43 x86 Security Liaison
44
45
46 --
47 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] stripping implementation in portage Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>