How to proceed with MiniDebugInfo

Jiri Moskovcak jmoskovc at
Thu May 24 09:17:37 UTC 2012

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.


More information about the devel mailing list