Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at
Mon May 7 21:54:38 UTC 2012

On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:36:04 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> I mean, just think of this: you have a pool of workstations to
> administer. It's all the same machines, with the same prepared OS
> image.

Then I probably use readonly /usr/lib/debug over NFS.

> Now, with your logic this would either result in all
> of them downloading

Downloading only once, such farms use HTTP proxy.

> a couple of GB of debuginfo for glibc and stuff like
> that, or all of them bombarding the retrace server, if they can.

I would choose local debuginfo for such specialized farm myself.

> But anyway, I don't think it's worth continuing this discussion, this is
> a bit like a dialogue between two wet towels...

I also do not think we can ever find an agreement.  I only wanted to post here
the opposite side of oppinions on this formal feature request.

> With Alex' work you need very very little working, just a small unwinder.

Yes, just an unwinder.  Not backtrace for debugging the problem.

> I am pretty sure I don't want my local developer machine always talk to
> the fedora server

Again, as a developer you can affort several GBs of debuginfo.

I can't believe - as a developer - you would be really sufficient debugging
all the system components just with the bare unwinder?  Without every looking
at any function parameters, local variables?

You would have to debug everything from the disassembly, wouldn't you?  In the
last 10 years debugging has improved and we can debug analysing at the source
level, no longer just reverse engineering the disassembly.

> smarter way: do client side backtraces and be done with it.

And have just the stats without ever being able to fix it.


More information about the devel mailing list