> > Hi Erik, maybe we can just rename the configure option to > > --enable-stripped-pdbs-for-bundle > > AND make the default = no/false . > Then without setting the configure flag, everything stays as it is for JDK > vendors/distributors who do not want the stripped pdbs in the bundle. > > Others who set the flag, have to "teach" the developers that the bundle > already contains stripped pdbs that need to be replaced by full/"private" > pdbs in case better symbols/stacks are wanted . > I think that’s a good compromise. > > > Now if MS had been kind enough to define a separate file type for the > > stripped pdbs, so that they could live alongside the full pdbs, we > > wouldn't have this issue. > > Unfortunately that seems not to work, I tried to use the stripped pdb-files > with another extension but no success ☹ . > > An alternative could be to create 2 bundles when "--enable-stripped-pdbs- > for-bundle" is set to yes , one with one without stripped pdbs . >
Hello, any more comment on this ? What about the option to create 2 bundles , one with one without stripped pdbs (should be very compatible to what we have and "nondisruptive" ) ? Best regards, Matthias
