On Sunday 27 November 2005 16:30, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> Could this debug info be NFS shared? assuming like computers, or would
> it be different on each computer.
It is probably as shareable as normal library files are. Maybe there is
more in common, but if the source was different, the end result
On Saturday 26 November 2005 18:50, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> probably in portage-2.0.54 a patch will be added to emit split debug
> info. Having a split debug allows us to retain all the advantages of
> stripping executables while gaining the ability to properly debug
> executables in
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 10:18 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 27/11/2005-13:54:33(+0100): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types
> > On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > > It's great!
> > > Make it a FEATURE default on for common profiles.
> > +1, and it would be better if the
maillog: 27/11/2005-13:54:33(+0100): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > It's great!
> > Make it a FEATURE default on for common profiles.
> +1, and it would be better if the FEATURES, instead of removing the generated
> files, would disable
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 12:50 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> probably in portage-2.0.54 a patch will be added to emit split debug
> info. Having a split debug allows us to retain all the advantages of
> stripping executables while gaining the ability to properly debug
> executables in
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 09:39 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> On 11/27/05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > > It's great!
> > > Make it a FEATURE default on for common profiles.
> > +1, and it would be better if the FEATURE
Random thought May be completely off base.
Could this debug info be NFS shared? assuming like computers, or would
it be different on each computer.
On 11/27/05, Tavis Ormandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 12:50:30PM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > I'm in favor of it enabled
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 12:50:30PM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> I'm in favor of it enabled per default but I'd like to know what you
> think and why. (advantages of on/off by default etc..)
>
This should definitely be enabled by default, we dont need to enable
debugging information for this to be use
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 09:39 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> On 11/27/05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > > It's great!
> > > Make it a FEATURE default on for common profiles.
> > +1, and it would be better if the FEATURE
On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> Err, maybe I am incorrect, but isn't it more "work" to ungenerate them
> (using strip) then to just not install them?
Their creation in-line of a binary is probably a simpler work (for the disk)
than having to split them out, but I might be wr
On 11/27/05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > It's great!
> > Make it a FEATURE default on for common profiles.
> +1, and it would be better if the FEATURES, instead of removing the generated
> files, would disable the
On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> It's great!
> Make it a FEATURE default on for common profiles.
+1, and it would be better if the FEATURES, instead of removing the generated
files, would disable the building of them completely, mainly because "work"
systems with limited CP
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 19:48 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> On 11/26/05, Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > Good afternoon,
> > >
> > > Would you be willing to give up space in $ROOT/usr/lib/debug for ELF
> > > executables by default in order to aid in better debugging by
On 11/26/05, Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > Good afternoon,
> >
> > Would you be willing to give up space in $ROOT/usr/lib/debug for ELF
> > executables by default in order to aid in better debugging by or do we
> > want to only emit it when a FEATURE= is defined.
> >
Ned Ludd wrote:
[snip]
It's great!
Make it a FEATURE default on for common profiles.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Developer Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ned Ludd wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> Would you be willing to give up space in $ROOT/usr/lib/debug for ELF
> executables by default in order to aid in better debugging by or do we
> want to only emit it when a FEATURE= is defined.
>
> Having a split debug pretty much obsoletes the need to add nos
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 12:50:30PM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Would you be willing to give up space in $ROOT/usr/lib/debug for ELF
> executables by default in order to aid in better debugging by or do we
> want to only emit it when a FEATURE= is defined.
would make more sense to have it be a FEATURE
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 12:50 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> probably in portage-2.0.54 a patch will be added to emit split debug
> info. Having a split debug allows us to retain all the advantages of
> stripping executables while gaining the ability to properly debug
> executables in
On Sat, 2005-26-11 at 12:50 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> I'm in favor of it enabled per default but I'd like to know what you
> think and why. (advantages of on/off by default etc..)
First, I fully support solar's patch, this feature should have been
integrated into portage months ago.
> Anybody want
On Saturday 26 November 2005 18:50, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> Would you be willing to give up space in $ROOT/usr/lib/debug for ELF
> executables by default in order to aid in better debugging by or do we
> want to only emit it when a FEATURE= is defined.
For me either way is good as lon
Good afternoon,
probably in portage-2.0.54 a patch will be added to emit split debug
info. Having a split debug allows us to retain all the advantages of
stripping executables while gaining the ability to properly debug
executables in bfd aware programs. It's been in testing with a small
hand full
21 matches
Mail list logo
