Mike Hearn wrote:
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 12:33 -0600, Robert Shearman wrote:
I wasn't very clear about what I wanted with the makefiles. Basically, this will be an optional post-build step. The way I am leaning towards at the moment is that "make install" will install with full debugging information, but "make install && make install-debuginfo" will strip the debug info into separate files and install it. AFAIK, the feature has been stable for a year and a few distros are making full use of it. Fedora definitely provides -debug packages that have the separate debug information.
Right, but for a while (this may even be still true) it messed up gdb
pretty badly. I suppose winedbg is unlikely to suffer the same problems
though.
I'm not sure what you mean by "it messed up gdb pretty badly", but I've done some tests with notepad.exe.so, and winedbg seemed to get the symbols correct. The actual change to add this was fairly minor, so any bugs are likely to be in the toolchain rather than the debugger.
Would "make install && make install-debuginfo" put binaries with full debugging info both embedded and separate on the system then?
"make install && make install_debuginfo" will install the debugging info both embedded and separate.
"make install_debuginfo && make install" will only install the separate.
This is one of the quirks I would like some feedback on and no doubt some people will have opinions on the best way to solve this.
Also, as
Fedora ships -debuginfo rpms for everything presumably it doesn't
actually require build system changes, does RPM have some method of
doing this automatically? If so, why do we need explicit support for it?
I have no idea. I'm not a package maintainer. Besides, not everyone uses .rpm packages to distribute packages, including us at CodeWeavers.
Rob
