On 8/24/21 18:36, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > They should ideally provide a version, but since we have packaging > that could compete with first party packages we can't really predict > what version we would go against.
Got it. > I think the reason why we didn't want the traditional separation > debuginfo package was the poor quality of panic backtraces. Once > split, installing the separate debuginfo wouldn't improve the > backtraces. OK ... hmmm. My experience has been that the information available in a panic's stack trace, or to gdb for a coredump, has been relatively barren. The binary isn't stripped, so you can see function names, but that's about it, everything else is mostly question marks and hex digits. Assertions are an exception, of course, because the names and source code line are in the string. But otherwise we have sometimes resorted to deciphering addresses and offsets and disassembled code. That can get you surprisingly far, but it could be so much easier. With the debuginfo installed, I could see everything in gdb, just the way you like it. Dridi thanks for the info, I won't worry about the debuginfo disrupting something else. Since it seems to work well, maybe the Varnish project can consider putting debuginfo RPMs on packagecloud as well? Like I said, I couldn't get it to install without removing the Obsoletes line, so that would have to be cleared up. PR or issue for pkg-varnish-cache? Best, Geoff -- ** * * UPLEX - Nils Goroll Systemoptimierung Scheffelstraße 32 22301 Hamburg Tel +49 40 2880 5731 Mob +49 176 636 90917 Fax +49 40 42949753 http://uplex.de
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list varnish-dev@varnish-cache.org https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
