How to proceed with MiniDebugInfo

Yanko Kaneti yaneti at
Thu May 24 08:22:17 UTC 2012

On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 09:35 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:28:16 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > However, the whole thing is useless unless we agree that we want to
> > enable this by default. It seems some people like the idea, whereas
> > others disagree that its worth the increased binary size. It doesn't
> > look like either side is gonna be able to convince the other side, so
> > how do we get to a decision here?
> It is difficult to agree on something when you still have not accepted why
> some people disagree with it.
> I do not mind the size, as for example we lose already 5-10% by not using gold
> (unused + duplicate template methods).  I mind that in all aspects better
> solution is ABRT and we should put more effort to it and not to some temporary
> poor solutions.  (This is very generalized to avoid the discussion again.)

And its difficult for me to understand how do you continue to claim "in
all aspects better" when comparing the two, An offline solution that
always produces at least something usable to a online one that requires
all-star alignment of circumstances to produce the perfect backtrace
result.  There is no basis for one-or-the-other comparison. 

IMHO its is a good thing for lightweight, kernel-like userspace
backtraces to become widely desseminated across the webs.


More information about the devel mailing list