On Sat, 2005-08-01 at 18:24 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On Sat, 2005-01-08 at 12:34 -0500, Alec wrote: > > Part of me is torn here. Having debuging enabled on GRP and stages > > sounds like a great idea in theory. I guess the deal is how much the > > users are going to complain when they find out that all their programs > > are built with debugging symbols? Granted it's not a problem for me > > personally because I build from stage1 all the time, so I'll gladly > > remove the FEATURE, but some people are installing gentoo on small > > drives. How much extra space does debugging info take up on a system, > > or on the LiveCD? > > Speaking of debugging info, perhaps this could be done using techniques > similar to RH's debuginfo rpms, where the debug stuff is separate from > the "standard" executable. Has anyone looked into this?
First, I totally agree that if the USE flag just adds -g to the CFLAGS and nostrip to FEATURES, its is EXTREMELY WRONG... Second, I have written a patch, based on redhat's work that allows "separate debug info". But it did not seem to create to create much interest, so I have not updated it since last summer. This patch introduces three new features: keepdebug which keeps the (separate) debug information for the libraries keepdebugbin which also keeps the (separate) debug information for executables.. keepsources which is imho the most important one and keeps the source files in /usr/src (just like redhat does) Keeping the sources is very very nice for developers when we want to trace a programs execution in the libraries it uses. The caveat is that it only works with relatively recent versions of binutils (but they are probably stable by now). See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45150 for code/details -- Olivier Cr�te [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer x86 Security Liaison
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
