From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1542 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2003 13:35:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1523 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2003 13:35:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.home) (12.223.225.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Jun 2003 13:35:15 -0000 Received: by zenia.home (Postfix, from userid 5433) id 0E3442101B; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 08:36:30 -0500 (EST) To: Nick Clifton Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Support for separate debug info files References: From: Jim Blandy Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:35:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00365.txt.bz2 Nick Clifton writes: > This leads me to my main point. Do we need the ability to create > stripped debuginfo files ? The original patch did this, but it > turns out to be problematical since the debuginfo files need to > contain dummy versions of the .text, .data, etc sections. Doing > this, rather than just stripping them out, looked non-trivial, so I > decided to skip it for this version. > > My theory is that the only benefit gained by being able to ship a > stripped debuginfo file as opposed to an unstripped one is that it > reduces the shipping size, making a distribution smaller. I am > assuming that hard disk space is not really an issue, just the size > of the shipped binaries. I think the idea is to omit the debug info files altogether from the distribution. It'll make the debug info packages take longer to download, but it's not a show-stopper, I think.