On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:37:22 +0200 Felix Zielcke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 05.08.2008, 23:54 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan: > > On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 01:50:21PM -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote: > > > In that case, should --enable-debug be the default, or > > > --disable-debug? > > > > I'd prefer to disable debug as default. What do others think? > > > Have it disabled by default. > I don't think it's useful to have them for everyone i.e. the average > user. I agree that having debug info for the installed GRUB is not helpful, especially for the general end-user. So files installed by the GRUB install process certainly don't need debugging symbols. My concern was only to generate the required symbol information at build time, not to install it for a real GRUB install, or to package these files for distribution in .rpm, .deb, etc. I don't really care if it's the default or not since I can simply choose my configure options as necessary for the task at hand. If I have a debugging situation, then I can rebuild with debug info, since I'd have to re-start the GRUB/QEMU session anyway to begin debugging. (And I don't use the ridiculously slow QEMU for most stuff anyway.) > Having debug symbols in the userland tools could be maybe a bit useful > for example in the case of the grub-probe segfault I experienced on my > mdraid experiments. True, in that case it makes sense to include debug info (if a distro's other packages include it), since a core dump could be used to debug, or if core dumps aren't enabled, then you could simply re-run it with 'gdb grub-probe' to try to recreate the problem. This doesn't require the whole QEMU virtual machine situation that debugging the GRUB boot loader itself requires. Regards, Colin _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
