[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#976462: tech-ctte: Should dbgsym files be compressed via objcopy --compress-debug-section or not?

>>>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> writes:

    Matthias> Maybe you should be more specific about "those who can't
    Matthias> use" uncompressed debug info in the first place.

So, you've argued that the disk savings are not significant inside a
package, because packages are themselves compressed.

What people are arguing is that they want to have debug info for large
programs like firefox or chromium installed, or really debug info for
large parts of their system.
They are in effect arguing that they care about the installed size not
the package size.
They have explicitly argued that having to uninstall and then later
reinstall disadvantages their debug cycle.

This situation is particularly unfortunate because it sounds like we
have a conflict between two techniques for saving space.

On one hand we have dwz which tries to optimize and reduce  overall size
of debug symbols

which is incompatible (apparently--no one has explicitly confirmed this)
compressed debug symbols.

Presumably we can still run dwz within a single package by doing so
before debug symbols are compressed.
But presumably this gets in the way of people running dwz themselves  or

I'll be blunt.
The people who say that they want debug symbols installed on their
system have made a simple, easy to understand argument.

The argument that compressed debug symbols break things is still porrly
We've had a claim that dwz might not work with compressed debug symbols
(and didn't used to).
We've had no one explain how that creates a problem in practice or even
confirm it's still the case.
It felt like pulling teeth to even get an answer that might be a tool we
care about.

Please be less vague!


Reply to: