From: Olivier Crete <tester@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] stripping implementation in portage
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:58:46 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1124819926.12024.80.camel@cocagne.max-t.internal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050823174021.GA28369@nightcrawler>
On Tue, 2005-23-08 at 12:40 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> First, sidenote (mild ot to this thread also), pardon the dupe posts,
> thick fingered typing dumping an old message :)
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 01:34:33PM -0400, Olivier Crete wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-23-08 at 11:16 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > As an aside to this. Does anyone know how debug information can be changed
> > > to have a different basedir. My idea was to create a "custom" strip
> > > wrapper that would create external debugging files (like now possible
> > > with gdb/binutils) and point them to a location
> > > in /usr/src/packagenameplusversion. For that it would be necessary to in
> > > some way hack the source location in the debug information.
> >
> > There is already a patch [1] in bugzilla that does that.. And in bonus
> > to keeping the debug files (currently in <libpath>/.debug/libname.so.dbg
> > but that can be changed) . It can also keep the source files
> > in /usr/src/debug so they can loaded by gdb (pretty useful when
> > debugging into libraries).
> >
> > It creates 3 new features, keepdebug, keepdebugbin and keepsources
> Would rather implement those as filters as described above; short
> version is that features is chunked up in the rewrite, so it's options
> on the component you're configuring moreso. That said, still will map
> from old make.* to new format (on the fly, no forced config upgrades),
> but I'd rather see it implemented as I've proposed.
>
> Reasoning is that if you build with debugging crap on, you've got
> maximal flexibility in your choice of what your binpkgs/vdb winds up
> with.
>
> Thoughts/yay/nays?
I havent looked at your new implementation (does it exist).. but yea
what you wrote seems to make sense... except that I keep the source code
too.. so it would bloat binary packages.. I think it should be done
before the packages are made.. or maybe use separate debug and have
separate debug packages like RedHat does.
--
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer
x86 Security Liaison
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-08-23 18:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-08-22 22:38 [gentoo-dev] stripping implementation in portage Brian Harring
2005-08-22 23:17 ` Jason Stubbs
2005-08-22 23:23 ` Donnie Berkholz
2005-08-23 9:16 ` Paul de Vrieze
2005-08-23 17:34 ` Olivier Crete
2005-08-23 17:40 ` Brian Harring
2005-08-23 17:58 ` Olivier Crete [this message]
2005-08-23 18:17 ` Brian Harring
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1124819926.12024.80.camel@cocagne.max-t.internal \
--to=tester@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox