On 25/07/14 17:27, Steve Huston wrote:
I believe that the person likely to be downloading qpid source is a
developer. It is likely a developer that does not want to become
intimately familiar with debugging Qpid - they just want it to work
without asking questions. But it is a person who may need a sensible stack
trace, line numbers, etc. to at least post back here if something goes
amiss. They will, after all, need to be testing their own software that
uses Qpid and may have occasion to ask things here.
When things are all debugged and ready to deploy, the user may want to
rebuild w/o debinfo, but if not, it will still perform very well in the
field.
-Steve
I don't agree with the assertion "the person likely to be downloading
qpid source is a developer " - well perhaps a developer of some
persuasion, but I certainly don't agree that they are necessarily a
*qpid* developer.
Packaging for various distros has improved recently, but as with most
Open Source projects the default mindset is that users download
cmake/configure
enjoy
It'd clearly be lovely if such users ultimately want to join the
community, but I believe that the majority of people who download our
software just want to *use* it and I believe that we should be making it
as simple as possible for them to download/build/use
The only way I'd feel happy defaulting to a build with debug symbols or
otherwise unstripped is if the build informed the users that this was
the case. I truly believe that the most common use case for an average
user is to want to download, build and enjoy and they should have a
reasonable expectation of a build that is shipable to a mission critical
operational environment without having to work out some (likely
undocumented) magic incantation.
It's not just about the performance, accidentally shipping operational
code with debug symbols is bad practice IMHO.
Frase
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
