Your message dated Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:19:32 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line done has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Darren Benham (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -------------------------------------- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Feb 1999 02:58:06 +0000 Received: (qmail 26447 invoked from network); 18 Feb 1999 02:58:06 -0000 Received: from ip3.net20483142.cr.sk.ca (HELO cabler.cableregina.com) (204.83.142.3) by master.debian.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 1999 02:58:06 -0000 Received: from [24.72.10.223] by cabler.cableregina.com (SMTPD32-4.0) id A19E9B90534; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:57:34 -0800 Received: (qmail 9736 invoked by uid 1001); 18 Feb 1999 03:12:37 -0000 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: huge libc-dbg package (32MB deb, unpacks to 120+ MB) References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Attribution: Gord Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 17 Feb 1999 21:12:36 -0600 In-Reply-To: Roland McGrath's message of "Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:25:52 -0500" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lines: 55 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 Package: libc0.2-dbg Version: 2.0.110-0.1 I am forwarding a message from Roland McGrath, accompanied with my own comments. It's really his reported bug, but he doesn't have time to learn the BTS, so I'm submitting it. >>>>> Roland McGrath writes: RM> The libc0.2-dbg_2.0.110-0.1.deb package is 32MB (more than a RM> third of the total space for all the hurd-specific .deb RM> packages). It installs over 120MB. I think this is RM> unreasonable. RM> What makes it so huge is the static libraries with debugging RM> symbols. These are particularly huge on the Hurd because of RM> extra headers and declarations, as well as there being more code RM> in libc on the hurd than on linux. RM> It includes -g symbols for the libraries themselves in both the RM> lib*_p.a libraries and the lib*_g.a libraries. I'm not entirely RM> sure what the purpose of the libc-dbg package is, but I don't RM> think this is necessary. RM> Does the linux version of the libc-dbg package for glibc-2.1 RM> include full debugging symbols for libc, and in the _p versions? Yes, the Linux version also includes debugging symbols. RM> I don't think it's useful to have the debugging symbols in the _p RM> libs. Those are for profiling, not for debugging. You don't RM> need to want to profile or debug libc itself to want the _p RM> libs--you need them if you want to profile your program's calls RM> into libc. For that matter, I think the _p libs should be in a RM> separate profile package rather than the dbg package (redhat has RM> a separate glibc-profile package). RM> I'm not sure that it's useful to have debugging symbols for libc RM> in the _g libs either, but maybe that's supposed to be the point RM> of them. But perhaps the point of them is just to be surely not RM> built with -fomit-frame-pointer, so you can get backtraces to RM> your own code if your program crashes inside libc. Any RM> distributed binaries with debugging symbols for libc seems kind RM> of pointless to me. The only person who would want them is RM> someone debugging libc, who will just build it themselves. I have to agree with Roland here on both points. Has there been thought to creating a separate libc-profile (without debugging symbols), and/or a libc-dbg without symbols (but with a frame pointer)? -- Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/) Lovers of freedom, unite! \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/) [Unfortunately, www.fig.org is broken. Please stay tuned for details.] --------------------------------------- Received: (at 33536-done) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Jul 2000 22:24:04 +0000 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 18 17:24:04 2000 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from sunu450.rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de [134.147.64.5] by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 2 (Debian)) id 13EfmV-0007xA-00; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 17:24:03 -0500 Received: (qmail 6514 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2000 22:24:02 -0000 Received: from dialppp-3-14.rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (HELO localhost) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mailhost.rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de with SMTP; 18 Jul 2000 22:24:02 -0000 Received: from marcus by localhost with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) for [EMAIL PROTECTED] id 13Efi8-0000BC-00; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:19:32 +0200 Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:19:32 +0200 From: Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: done Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.4i Organization: Marcus Brinkmann's Home Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] a long time ago -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org for public PGP Key [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
