Moin Thiemo!
Thiemo Seufer schrieb am Sonntag, den 06. Februar 2005:
> > Archive bloat is still a problem, though.
>
> Not if mirror admins can select if they want to mirror -dbg.
> This means: -dbg must be a separate archive.
Agreed. And (where it make sense) we should also move static librarie
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 08:52:28AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > My feeling for some time has been that we should introduce a separate
> > section in the archive, or a separate archive and come up with the
> > infrastructure to upload -dbg packages to there, with separat
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 08:52:28AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> My feeling for some time has been that we should introduce a separate
> section in the archive, or a separate archive and come up with the
> infrastructure to upload -dbg packages to there, with separated
> debugging symbols in them (see
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> The most obvious solution I can come up for this issue is to build a
>> separate tree with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="noopt nostrip", at least for i386.
>> That means having a dedicated machine that would be used to run a buildd
>> for tha
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The most obvious solution I can come up for this issue is to build a
> separate tree with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="noopt nostrip", at least for i386.
> That means having a dedicated machine that would be used to run a buildd
> for that. Unfortunately, I don't have such a machine
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 01:14:09AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> (Aha: the strip tool mentioned is in elfutils, which is non-free.
> Blah.)
objcopy(1):
--only-keep-debug
Strip a file, removing any sections that would be stripped by
--strip-debug and leaving the debugging s
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 01:14:09AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 10:33:53PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > It was brought up on IRC, a couple of weeks ago (my apologies, but I don't
> > recall who brought it up, nor do I have a log) that it is now possible
> > to strip debugg
Le samedi 05 février 2005 à 22:33 -0700, Joel Aelwyn a écrit :
> It was brought up on IRC, a couple of weeks ago (my apologies, but I don't
> recall who brought it up, nor do I have a log) that it is now possible
> to strip debugging information from a binary or library, and keep the
> debugging in
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 22:33:53 -0700, Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>1) It would become possible (I'm not sure if it would be *sane*) to
>include debugging information for all binaries and libraries in a fairly
>straightforward manner - and one which could target a directory that, like
>/usr/
El dom, 06-02-2005 a las 01:14 -0500, Glenn Maynard escribiÃ:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 10:33:53PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > It was brought up on IRC, a couple of weeks ago (my apologies, but I don't
> > recall who brought it up, nor do I have a log) that it is now possible
> > to strip debuggi
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 10:33:53PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> It was brought up on IRC, a couple of weeks ago (my apologies, but I don't
> recall who brought it up, nor do I have a log) that it is now possible
> to strip debugging information from a binary or library, and keep the
> debugging info
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 12:36:55AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> With the increasing numbers of libraries, especially libraries in
> development, we have an increasing number of -dbg packages in the
> archive. As they are useful only for debugging, and not for the average
> user, I think they ar
With the increasing numbers of libraries, especially libraries in
development, we have an increasing number of -dbg packages in the
archive. As they are useful only for debugging, and not for the average
user, I think they are mostly cluttering the Packages file and mirror
space.
Practically speak
13 matches
Mail list logo
