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

Re: Bug#783876: Seriously, these binaries should be stripped by default



Control: severity -1 important

On 21.04.2016 19:28, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Control: severity -1 serious
Justification: wasting many megabytes of space and download

sorry, I don't see this as a justification.

We're shipping broken toolchain packages

please stop trolling. Nothing is broken.

No, we don't ship these, as clearly stated in this report. They are in the archive as unstripped versions. Other software stacks as the Go stack ship unstripped binaries as well, because they need these.

that are intentionally too
large, and this is causing issues elsewhere. The "netinst" CD image
that we advertise to people as the default Debian image to use for
most installations is now huge. The multi-arch netinst no longer even
fits on a single CD due to this waste of space.

So why does the netinst image need a compiler?

There's not been any visible progress on this bug in since last
year. If upstream want to ship uncompressed binaries for diagnostics
and can't cope with separate debug symbols, maybe ship separate
alternative unstripped toolchain packages and point to those if people
want them?

The unstripped binaries should be installed by default on porter boxes and buildds. Yes, this is a trade-off between (largely my) developer time, the ability for Debian developers to produce complete bug reports, and an increase on machine/bandwidth resources. If I have the choice to select between human and other resources, I'll try to keep the time I have to spend on reproducing things rather small.

> There's not been any visible progress on this bug in since last
> year.

So you step in here like a bull in a china shop, raising the severity without doing anything else? You are working for a Linux and open source aware organization, have you tried to get developer time to address issues like these? Have you sent a patch proposal to implement such a change either upstream or on the packaging side?

Not that amused, Matthias


Reply to: