X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:04:22 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: add -debuginfo packages
Message-ID: <20090821210422.GE15033@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <6910a60908041158p10fa632cvc2f21524e33b74ce AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>  <4A8DDEE8 DOT 2050606 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>  <20090821001702 DOT GA15308 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>  <Pine DOT CYG DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0908211026060 DOT 1388 AT PC1163-8460-XP DOT flightsafety DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.CYG.4.58.0908211026060.1388@PC1163-8460-XP.flightsafety.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

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