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

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

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:40:34PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>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.

Thanks for the insult. :-(

There's no trolling here - they're broken according to policy ("by
default all installed binaries should be stripped"), and this change
is causing real problems for people.

>>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?

It's been a feature for years that we include a compiler and kernel
headers to allow people to build third party modules on amd64/i386.

>>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.

With separate -unstripped (or whatever) packages, they could be
installed by admin choice in those situations.

>> 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?

Please don't go there. We're all busy, you know that.

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
Google-bait:       http://www.debian.org/CD/free-linux-cd
  Debian does NOT ship free CDs. Please do NOT contact the mailing
  lists asking us to send them to you.

Reply to: