On 24/08/2022 12:33, Paul Reeves wrote: > On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 16:04:20 +0200 > Mark Rotteveel <m...@lawinegevaar.nl> wrote: > >> On 24-08-2022 15:36, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: >>> Mark Rotteveel wrote 24.08.2022 15:32: >>>> If the term is confusing or ambiguous, it already is so in its current >>>> form. >>> >>> Yes, it is. That's why I would suggest to change that. >> >> The Windows pdb packages are complete builds though. So maybe those >> should be "debug", while the Linux builds should be "debug-symbols" or >> something like that. > > The windows pdb packages contain complete builds partly because of the > requirement that anything installable must be uninstallable. Just dropping > a bunch of pdb's into the install dir will soone or later leave a mess > behind it. > > More importantly, it is essential that the symbols exactly match the > binaries, otherwise the debugger will complain and the whole exercise will > be largely useless. Shipping a complete kit guarantees that everything will > match up and can be uninstalled easily. > > But I agree with Dimitry - we should take care to distinguish kits > containing debug symbols from actual 'Debug' builds. >
But that leaves a question. Who installs the "debug" binaries? I expect people looking for this is people having a problem and wanting to understand a crash. Then they would need to overwrite their installation or install it in another place. This does not look as a good workflow. It would be easy to drop the debug symbols in their installed location. The install location already has modifiable files that is not uninstalled. If the debug symbols do not matches the executables it probably will not make much harm: - Someone put them there, updated installation and did not updated the debug symbols - Someone did a wrong job - Someone will not have a good experience with the debug - Someone will correct their poor job Adriano Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
