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

[Ivan Yosifov]

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.
>
>
> --
> Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
> Gentoo Linux

+1 for default

IMO it should be on by default but documented in bold in the install
guide for those who wish to disable it. It makes sense to able to debug
a problem right away rather than having to reemerge things first, to get
the debugging info. 

How much disk space should the debug info consume ?

-- 
Cheers,
Ivan Yosifov.

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list