| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:28:13AM -0500, Brian Ford wrote: >On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>How many people here are capable of firing up a debugger to decode >>problems? > >A lot more if they don't have to go through the pain of downloading >source code and figuring out how to correctly build the package. You'd >get better bug reports faster I think. How many times have you >requested a more refined test case becuase you didn't want to have to >build perl in order to debug it? You're incorrect in thinking that I'll stop asking for refined test cases just because perl debugging info is available. I'm perfectly capable of building perl myself if I thought it was necessary. I am even capable of debugging perl. I don't want to do any of that. I want the maintainers to be capable enough to narrow down a test case to help spread the burden of debugging around. I would not be particularly pleased to get bug reports like "perl SEGVed. Download the debuginfo package and you can see why". I've already made the cost benefit analysis of the .5% of people who would find this useful vs. the amount of time it would take me to implement in upset and potentially setup.exe, the amount of time it would take package maintainers (like me) to implement, the amount of extra disk space it would take on sourceware, the amount of extra net bandwidth that would be consumed by mirror traffic and the amount of extra cygwin mailing list "do I need this?" traffic we'd see. I appreciate the thought that went into the proposal but I don't think this is something that we want to waste limited cygwin volunteer resources to support. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |