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

Re: Bug#415194: libextlib-ocaml-dev: No debugging information

On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 03:52:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 03:12:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > This would strongly hint at a behaviour of always including the debug symbols
> > in libraries, and since the .cmo/.cma are in the -dev file anyway, this would
> > not impose a size penalty on the normal user at all.
> > 
> > Do we have an idea of how much the size increase is ? 
> I tested that on extlib, and I'm quite scared by the result:
>   zack@aquarium:$ ls -l *deb
>   -rw-r--r-- 1 zack zack 297300 2007-04-09 15:27 libextlib-ocaml-dev_1.5-6_i386.deb
>   -rw-r--r-- 1 zack zack 529000 2007-04-09 15:34 libextlib-ocaml-dev_1.5-7_i386.deb
> As expected the changelog entry for -7 is:
>   zack@aquarium:$ dpkg-parsechangelog | tail -2
>      * compile objects with debugging information, patch from Ivan Jager
>        (Closes: #415194)
> Some more details:
>   zack@aquarium:$ dpkg --info *-6*.deb | grep -i size
>    size 297300 bytes: control archive= 4908 bytes.
>    Installed-Size: 1808
>   zack@aquarium:$ dpkg --info *-7*.deb | grep -i size
>    size 529000 bytes: control archive= 4907 bytes.
>    Installed-Size: 2280
>   zack@aquarium:$ dpkg-deb -x *-6*.deb no_debug/
>   zack@aquarium:$ dpkg-deb -x *-7*.deb debug/
>   zack@aquarium:$ du -sh no_debug/usr/lib/ocaml/3.09.2/extlib/
>   840K    no_debug/usr/lib/ocaml/3.09.2/extlib/
>   zack@aquarium:$ du -sh debug/usr/lib/ocaml/3.09.2/extlib/
>   1,3M    debug/usr/lib/ocaml/3.09.2/extlib/
> About 50% more in the size of OCaml objects, that's *a lot*. IMO this is
> enough of an argument to give up the idea, and also to strip the
> standard library, but maybe we should ask for the opinions of the
> release managers / the cd team.

Well, it is a huge size increase, but how many libraries are affected ? What
is the size of all the ocaml bytecode libraries in the archive ?  And if
you compare that to the -dbg versions of the C libraries, is it significant ? 

I am still in favour of always including them, i was told some time ago by
someone close to the ftp-masters, that even the place gain of not rebuilding
coq for all non-native arches was a minor issue, so ...


Sven Luther

Reply to: