On 22.04.2016 00:31, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:40:34PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: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.
ok, thanks for the explanation.
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.
well, admin choice is usually not the default. So this would miss the buildds.you didn't write about how much the netinst image exceeds the cd size. If it helps, lto1 could be stripped by default, because it's not used by default for package builds.
Matthias