Re: default -g ??!?

[MK]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:31:32 +0000
Roger Leigh <address@hidden> wrote:
> What actual problems are the debugging symbols causing you?
> What is the wrong with the default?

I mention this in my other email (about gvim, and that a -g exe will
load noticeably slower than one without debug symbols).  I do not
think the exception (a need for debugging) should make the rule
(general use, production grade software).  I'd bet 99%+ of the time
those compiled in debugging symbols never even get used a single time.

Yes, I know you can optionally strip, but again this is has the
exception make the rule.  It just ain't as user friendly that way.

> Most users are unaware if they are running stripped or unstripped
> binaries, but when a user runs into problems, it's nice to have
> unstripped binaries around for diagnostic purposes.  

So who cares that for who knows how long I have been tapping my
fingers for 3-4 seconds waiting for my unstripped gvim to load?? I'd
much, much rather have it work in as streamlined a manner day to day,
*by default*, then if I run into a problem, I can build "CFLAGS=-g" to
diagnose.

If I put a device in your car that ran the battery down and lowered the
gas mileage, the purpose of which was to diagnose problems *when there
aren't any*, then said you should leave it on all the time anyway, what
would you think?

I understand the argument that by always using the -g version, you can
avoid having complications whereby the exe compiled without debugging
symbols may demonstrate problems the -g does not.  However, by again
letting this exception set the rule, you are condemning all software to
run wastefully.

> For Debian at least, we want unstripped binaries by default.  We'll
> do the stripping later.  There is a reason for this.  We provide
> "-dbg" packages, which nowadays contain detached debugging symbols.
> The dh_strip program handles this as already mentioned.

Well, point taken, and certainly the stuff in my /usr/bin has been
stripped by the distro.  Terrific -- but as I said in the other email,
this means you, the distro rep, are potentially setting policies for
source built software (or forcing developers to maintain one for 
source downloads, one for debian, one for redhat, etc.)  

I have yet to discuss this with my packager, but if it is no good to
say, "Well, we're the experts here: is it so hard for you to add -g to
CFLAGS when you package?" because this would be incompatible with
Debian systems or automation, then the Debian system has a design
flaw in it, and someone saying to me "just put a note in your README"
is, in effect, a work-around for *your* short sighted laziness (no
offence intended).

It's almost a form of imperialism, if you get my drift ;)  How does it
fit in with the GNU philosophy of user empowerment vs. "proprietary"
policy making?

> Having unstripped binaries is contrary to all these goals.  Note that
> this is not unique to Debian;

Okay, so to stretch the analogy: one imperialist nation follows the
example of another, so this justifies it?  Methinks "the emperor wears
no clothes" here.

MK

-- 
"The angel of history[...]is turned toward the past." (Walter Benjamin)