From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Tue Oct 20 21:51:53 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43844A1ADC9 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:51:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ian@freebsd.org) Received: from erouter6.ore.mailhop.org (erouter6.ore.mailhop.org [54.187.213.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CE9E1CB for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:51:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ian@freebsd.org) Received: from ilsoft.org (unknown [73.34.117.227]) by outbound3.ore.mailhop.org (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPSA; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:51:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rev (rev [172.22.42.240]) by ilsoft.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t9KLpjL5013520; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:51:45 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from ian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <1445377905.99375.22.camel@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Retiring in-tree GDB From: Ian Lepore To: Bryan Drewery , John Baldwin , "'freebsd-arch'" Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:51:45 -0600 In-Reply-To: <5626B15C.4080408@FreeBSD.org> References: <2678091.es0AGJQ0Ou@ralph.baldwin.cx> <5626B15C.4080408@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.5 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:51:53 -0000 On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 14:25 -0700, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 10/20/2015 1:36 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > > However, I would like to propose that we retire the in-tree GDB for > > some of > > our platforms (namely x86) for 11. In particular, I think we > > should default > > Disabling/removing gdb. Definitely. It is unusable in many cases and > the > working gdb is just a 'pkg install' away. > > > to enabling lldb and disabling gdb for platforms that meet the > > following > > Why should we include lldb in the base system? It is not needed to > build > or use the system and we can easily provide one from packages. > > Arguments about providing a default working system don't work here > for > me as we don't provide perl, python, valgrind, vim, emacs, X11, etc. > We > can provide lldb and gdb on the default DVD though. > > If we are actually going to "package base" in 11, we should not be > adding new things into base that can easily live in ports. Yes, I > know > lldb is already there but I don't think it should be. > > Can the same be said for tools such as truss, ktrace or nvi? Sure. > The > discussion is really "what packages should be installed by default". > The answer should be "what all, or most, users _need_" Do most users > need a debugger? I don't think so. > > > criteria: > > > > 1) devel/gdb works including thread and kgdb support > > 2) lldb works This just-won't-die meme that a "functional system" is nothing more than a bare kernel and an init binary and everything else comes from ports is extra-scary when you consider that ports can't even be (cross -)built for some architectures. It sucks that the project is adopting the mindset that the only way to compete with linux is to become linux. (And it sucks that installing a truly functional system will require end users to have roughly the same knowledge as the team that assembles a linux distro.) -- Ian