Re: Compiling all packages with debug information?

[Philipp Marek <philipp@marek.priv.at>]

Mario Iseli wrote:
> True, true, true... I guess it's a good solution as we have it now, if the
> maintainer thinks a -dbg package would be useful, he/she can create one and
> provide it to the users. I personally wouldn't do that for smaller packages
> which are compiled on "normal modern i386 stuff" in less than 15 minutes
> because I think that in this case the user can do that on his own. For big
> packages (like KDE for example) it's definitively better to have such a
> -dbg package.
Well, not only big packages make problems ... some small programs might need a 
lot of libraries, and recompiling *all* of them is the biggest problem.

> Mhh'k... Archivesize... How many percent of the whole mirrorsize belong
> to -dbg packages? 
I'd assume it's not so much the binary size of the packages, but the number of 
them ... that's why I asked whether a new branch might be better for them.
Like "stable", "testing", "unstable", "experimental" ... "dbginfo". Then 
normal users wouldn't even see this packages.



Regards,

Phil

-- 
Versioning your /etc, /home or even your whole installation?
             Try fsvs (fsvs.tigris.org)!