Mail Archives: cygwin/2012/02/19/00:41:56
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 01:42:20PM -0500, Ryan Johnson wrote:
>On 18/02/2012 12:58 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 04:47:48PM +0000, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>> On 21/08/2009 00:40, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>>>> On 04/08/2009 13:58, Reini Urban wrote:
>>>>> Rather than stripping our exe's and dll's I suggest to strip the debug
>>>>> info into
>>>>> seperate /usr/lib/debug/path/file.dbg and package them seperately in -debuginfo
>>>>> packages such as with fedora.
>>> FWIW, attached is the patch I've been using to do this, based on Reini's
>>> patch, updated to address some of your concerns.
>>>
>>> This can, as you suggested, strip the symbols to a location outside of ${D}
>>> and create a single debuginfo package containing those symbols for each cygport.
>>>
>>> I know that support for these packages in upset and setup has been rejected by
>>> cgf, but it's still useful to me to keep the debuginfo for the packaged builds
>>> of Xwin around.
>> I can see why it would be useful but why do we need to change anything?
>> Why can't you just release a xorg-server-debuginfo package and have
>> people install that when you want them to collect debugging?
>If they have to install a different binary then the existing stack trace
>is no longer useful. Especially if the "debug" package had different
>optimization levels and makes a heisenbug disappear.
I think you misunderstand what is being discussed.
debuginfo packages contain the debugging information for a released
binary. There is no "different binary".
Actually, if this was what you apparently thought it was, there would be
even less reason to make it some sort of special entity.
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
- Raw text -