Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

Bill Nottingham notting at
Mon May 7 20:24:15 UTC 2012

Alexander Larsson (alexl at said: 
> I just wrote a new Feature proposal for shipping minimal debug info by
> default:
> The feature page lists some of the background and statistics. It also
> lists some options in how to implement this, which all have various
> different pros and cons. I'd like to hear what peoples opinions on these
> are.
> My personal opinion is that we should go with compressed data, in the
> original files without the line number information. This means we use
> minimal space (i.e. an installation increase by only 0.5%) while being
> completely transparent to users. It does however make the normal
> packages larger in a non-optional way which some people disagree with.

1) minidebuginfo.rpm is silly. Either it's small enough (and 0.5% is
certainly that, IMO) that it goes in the main package, or it's too big and
we should just do regular debuginfo packages.

2) "It will also make it easier to do things like system wide profiling,
userspace dynamic probes and causual debugging."

However, the Scope: is only gdb and rpm. Wouldn't said tools also need
changes? Would this be done in libdwarf, or similar?

3) You mention this being done in, via injection(?). Is
this possible to be done automatically even for non-rpm-packaged code?

4) I disagree with the contention that this should all be done via the
retrace server. For the retrace server to work, you have to have
all of the following:

- all relevant binaries and DSOs built in Fedora
- all relevant binary and DSO information imported into the retrace server
- a working connection to
- sufficient bandwidth to transmit the core information
- retrace server capacity and availablilty

For this to provide a reasonable amount of information, all you need is:
- an unwinder

Simpler is usually better.


More information about the devel mailing list