At 05:57 PM 2/18/2003, Branko Čibej wrote: >William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>What say we? Does this sound like something worth researching? Allen, >>Brane and fellow Win32 hackers, should I proceed to figure out how to >>structure such a binaries and symbols resource after I finish the >>apr 0.9.2 and httpd 2.0.45 releases? Of course I will set aside those files, >>.zip the .pdb's for posterity, roll the .dbg files into the installer >>(optional >>feature, of course.) We might also trash the /map extraction from our >>link steps, seeing as .dbg and .pdb files contain everything we could ever >>wish to have. > >I think having the .dbg symbols should be quite enough for a normal >httpd installation, so I think fixing the timestamp problem isn't that >important for 0.9.2/2.0.45.
100% agreed here - as long as you don't keep .dbg and .pdb files together, it *will* pickup the mismatched ,pdb files for debugging the application. One point I meant to make... can we make the .dbg simplified symbols -p(rivate) such that they are even smaller? With the full blown .pdb's available to all who are interested, I don't see that as a shortcoming. >If we can really do without the map files >once the .dbg's are available, then I see nothing wrong with killing them. I believe so... if others agree I'll make all this so before the release. Bill
