From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 18 13:46:37 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 869D91065677 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:46:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevlo@FreeBSD.org) Received: from ns.kevlo.org (kevlo.org [220.128.136.52]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 280768FC1E for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:46:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (kevlo@kevlo.org [220.128.136.52]) by ns.kevlo.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5IDH7jh023644 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:17:07 +0800 (CST) From: Kevin Lo To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <4C1AAD6C.8070705@freebsd.org> References: <20100617.143334.584432776655157077.imp@bsdimp.com> <201006172335.21969.max@love2party.net> <4C1AAD6C.8070705@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:17:07 +0800 Message-ID: <1276867027.1995.34.camel@nsl> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Time to stop stripping binaries? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:46:37 -0000 Tim Kientzle wrote: > Max Laier wrote: > > On Thursday 17 June 2010 22:33:34 M. Warner Losh wrote: > >> > >> Now that disks are big, can we stop stripping binaries by default? > >> > >> I've worked up a patch that lets you set WITH_BINARY_SYMBOLS or > >> WITHOUT_BINARY_SYMBOLS as you see fit. We should commit it regardless > >> of the outcome of this discussion (well, defaulting to yes or no > >> depending on the outcome). > > > > My vote is with symbols in current and stable, without in releases - by > > default. i.e. everything people build at home from an unknown repo state > > should have symbols, everything we "ship" can be reproduced if needed. > > I was going to make this suggestion myself, but Max beat me to it. ;-) > > Definitely -CURRENT should default to building with > symbols. I've spent too much time going back to > re-build specific pieces with symbols in order > to debug issues in -CURRENT. > > For releases, I think there's a good argument to > leaving symbols off (CD space is still rather dear). > > For stable, I could go either way. +1. Agreed with Tim :-) > Tim Kevin