How to proceed with MiniDebugInfo

[Jiri Moskovcak]

On 05/24/2012 11:07 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 11:22 +0300, Yanko Kaneti wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I obviously agree with this, and disagree with Jan, but I'd like to
> avoid just repeating the previous discussion. The disagreement seems to
> be about two things:
>
> 1) Any binary size increase is bad (as it affects cd sizes, etc)
> 2) The results of the MiniDebugInfo is not perfect, and
>     there is a theoretically perfect approach. So we should not
>     spend time/energy/space/bits/whatever on the non-perfect
>     appraoch.
>     However, the perfect approach has other disadvantages
>     due to being online/centralized, so I and others think
>     its worth having both.
>
> The increased space is clearly a project global wide question that
> probably has to be decided by Fesco.
>
> The duplication of effort less so IMHO, as different people are doing
> the work. If we don't do minidebug I will not be spending any resources
> on the ABRT server anyway. So, not doing minidebug will not affect ABRT
> positively, and doing it will not affect it negatively (in fact, it
> might have a slight positive effect as it can use the low quality info
> when offline). But still, as this is mainly a resource/project
> management disagreement it might make sense to have Fesco look at it
> too.

In fact it will affect ABRT positively - the calltrace with function 
names is a pretty good for duplicate checking, so ABRT will be able to 
find the dupes in already filled bugzilla tickets without requiring the 
full debuginfo.

Jirka