* emacs-20101122 windows binaries @ 2010-11-22 22:11 Sean Sieger 2010-11-23 2:20 ` Eric Lilja 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Sean Sieger @ 2010-11-22 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel; +Cc: help-emacs-windows The trunk was built and runs successfully on Windows. Binaries have been published in http://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-22 22:11 emacs-20101122 windows binaries Sean Sieger @ 2010-11-23 2:20 ` Eric Lilja 2010-11-23 14:06 ` Eric Lilja 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Eric Lilja @ 2010-11-23 2:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel On 2010-11-22 23:11, Sean Sieger wrote: > The trunk was built and runs successfully on Windows. Binaries have > been published in > > http://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/ > > > Why is it ~9 MB smaller than the previous set (and I'm talking about the NOT-barebin version)? -EL ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 2:20 ` Eric Lilja @ 2010-11-23 14:06 ` Eric Lilja 2010-11-23 15:02 ` Jason Rumney 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Eric Lilja @ 2010-11-23 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel On 2010-11-23 03:20, Eric Lilja wrote: > On 2010-11-22 23:11, Sean Sieger wrote: >> The trunk was built and runs successfully on Windows. Binaries have >> been published in >> >> http://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/ >> >> >> > > Why is it ~9 MB smaller than the previous set (and I'm talking about the > NOT-barebin version)? > > -EL > > > Unpacked the difference is almost 30 MB and the reason is that the binaries in this latest set are much smaller than before. emacs.exe, for instance, went from 37.6 MB to 13.8 MB. I have no idea if this hints at a problem at all. - EL ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 14:06 ` Eric Lilja @ 2010-11-23 15:02 ` Jason Rumney 2010-11-23 16:01 ` Sean Sieger 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Jason Rumney @ 2010-11-23 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Lilja; +Cc: emacs-devel Eric Lilja <mindcooler@gmail.com> writes: > Unpacked the difference is almost 30 MB and the reason is that the > binaries in this latest set are much smaller than before. emacs.exe, > for instance, went from 37.6 MB to 13.8 MB. I have no idea if this > hints at a problem at all. I guess no debug info has been included (probably not a good idea for snapshots). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 15:02 ` Jason Rumney @ 2010-11-23 16:01 ` Sean Sieger 2010-11-23 16:18 ` Stefan Monnier ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Sean Sieger @ 2010-11-23 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> writes: I guess no debug info has been included (probably not a good idea for snapshots). My bad: - Snapshots should or should not include debug info? - Pretests should or should not include debug info? - Releases should or should not include debug info? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 16:01 ` Sean Sieger @ 2010-11-23 16:18 ` Stefan Monnier 2010-11-23 18:39 ` Eli Zaretskii 2010-11-23 23:00 ` Jason Rumney 2 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2010-11-23 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Sieger; +Cc: emacs-devel > I guess no debug info has been included (probably not a good idea for > snapshots). > My bad: > - Snapshots should or should not include debug info? > - Pretests should or should not include debug info? These two should have debug info, yes. They're mostly distributed to help people fix bugs before the release. > - Releases should or should not include debug info? I'm OK either way on this one. Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 16:01 ` Sean Sieger 2010-11-23 16:18 ` Stefan Monnier @ 2010-11-23 18:39 ` Eli Zaretskii 2010-11-23 18:39 ` Lennart Borgman 2010-11-23 23:00 ` Jason Rumney 2 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2010-11-23 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Sieger; +Cc: emacs-devel > From: Sean Sieger <sean.sieger@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:01:00 -0500 > > - Snapshots should or should not include debug info? They should. > - Pretests should or should not include debug info? They should. > - Releases should or should not include debug info? It is IMO slightly better to ship the release without debug info. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 18:39 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2010-11-23 18:39 ` Lennart Borgman 2010-11-23 19:22 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman @ 2010-11-23 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: Sean Sieger, emacs-devel >> - Releases should or should not include debug info? > > It is IMO slightly better to ship the release without debug info. Why not ship to versions of the release binaries, with and without debug info? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 18:39 ` Lennart Borgman @ 2010-11-23 19:22 ` Eli Zaretskii 2010-11-23 19:28 ` Lennart Borgman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2010-11-23 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lennart Borgman; +Cc: sean.sieger, emacs-devel > From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:39:41 +0100 > Cc: Sean Sieger <sean.sieger@gmail.com>, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > >> - Releases should or should not include debug info? > > > > It is IMO slightly better to ship the release without debug info. > > Why not ship to versions of the release binaries, with and without debug info? Because it's pointless. If we want to give users release binaries with debug info, we should just ship such a binary, period. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 19:22 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2010-11-23 19:28 ` Lennart Borgman 2010-11-23 19:52 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman @ 2010-11-23 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: sean.sieger, emacs-devel On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:39:41 +0100 >> Cc: Sean Sieger <sean.sieger@gmail.com>, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> >> - Releases should or should not include debug info? >> > >> > It is IMO slightly better to ship the release without debug info. >> >> Why not ship to versions of the release binaries, with and without debug info? > > Because it's pointless. If we want to give users release binaries > with debug info, we should just ship such a binary, period. Please explain why you think that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 19:28 ` Lennart Borgman @ 2010-11-23 19:52 ` Eli Zaretskii 2010-11-23 19:56 ` Lennart Borgman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2010-11-23 19:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lennart Borgman; +Cc: sean.sieger, emacs-devel > From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:28:33 +0100 > Cc: sean.sieger@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: > >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> > >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:39:41 +0100 > >> Cc: Sean Sieger <sean.sieger@gmail.com>, emacs-devel@gnu.org > >> > >> >> - Releases should or should not include debug info? > >> > > >> > It is IMO slightly better to ship the release without debug info. > >> > >> Why not ship to versions of the release binaries, with and without debug info? > > > > Because it's pointless. If we want to give users release binaries > > with debug info, we should just ship such a binary, period. > > Please explain why you think that. I just did, above. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 19:52 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2010-11-23 19:56 ` Lennart Borgman 2010-11-23 20:50 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman @ 2010-11-23 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: sean.sieger, emacs-devel On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:28:33 +0100 >> Cc: sean.sieger@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> >> >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:39:41 +0100 >> >> Cc: Sean Sieger <sean.sieger@gmail.com>, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> >> >> >> - Releases should or should not include debug info? >> >> > >> >> > It is IMO slightly better to ship the release without debug info. >> >> >> >> Why not ship to versions of the release binaries, with and without debug info? >> > >> > Because it's pointless. If we want to give users release binaries >> > with debug info, we should just ship such a binary, period. >> >> Please explain why you think that. > > I just did, above. In what way is "pointless" an explanation? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 19:56 ` Lennart Borgman @ 2010-11-23 20:50 ` Eli Zaretskii [not found] ` <AANLkTimwK2svWBCGocR0zT5=qDsn3Z6=kUK=Wz0VqYYk@mail.gmail.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2010-11-23 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lennart Borgman; +Cc: sean.sieger, emacs-devel > From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:56:11 +0100 > Cc: sean.sieger@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > >> > Because it's pointless. If we want to give users release binaries > >> > with debug info, we should just ship such a binary, period. > >> > >> Please explain why you think that. > > > > I just did, above. > > In what way is "pointless" an explanation? I meant the second sentence. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <AANLkTimwK2svWBCGocR0zT5=qDsn3Z6=kUK=Wz0VqYYk@mail.gmail.com>]
[parent not found: <83d3pv92az.fsf@gnu.org>]
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries [not found] ` <83d3pv92az.fsf@gnu.org> @ 2010-11-23 21:10 ` Lennart Borgman 2010-11-23 21:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman @ 2010-11-23 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii, Emacs-Devel devel On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:57:39 +0100 >> >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> >> >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:56:11 +0100 >> >> Cc: sean.sieger@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> >> >> >> > Because it's pointless. If we want to give users release binaries >> >> >> > with debug info, we should just ship such a binary, period. >> >> >> >> >> >> Please explain why you think that. >> >> > >> >> > I just did, above. >> >> >> >> In what way is "pointless" an explanation? >> > >> > I meant the second sentence. >> >> Can you then explain if you think there is any reason not to ship the >> release binaries with debug info? > > I said it is slightly better, that's all. The reason is disk space, > of course: 30MB is a lot for a binary. Why do you then think it is pointless to ship both binaries with debug info and without it? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 21:10 ` Lennart Borgman @ 2010-11-23 21:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 2010-11-23 21:33 ` Lennart Borgman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2010-11-23 21:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lennart Borgman; +Cc: emacs-devel > From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:10:59 +0100 > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: > >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> > >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:57:39 +0100 > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: > >> >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> > >> >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:56:11 +0100 > >> >> Cc: sean.sieger@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > >> >> > >> >> >> > Because it's pointless. If we want to give users release binaries > >> >> >> > with debug info, we should just ship such a binary, period. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Please explain why you think that. > >> >> > > >> >> > I just did, above. > >> >> > >> >> In what way is "pointless" an explanation? > >> > > >> > I meant the second sentence. > >> > >> Can you then explain if you think there is any reason not to ship the > >> release binaries with debug info? > > > > I said it is slightly better, that's all. The reason is disk space, > > of course: 30MB is a lot for a binary. > > Why do you then think it is pointless to ship both binaries with debug > info and without it? It should be clear: it's even more disk space waste. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 21:18 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2010-11-23 21:33 ` Lennart Borgman 2010-11-24 2:11 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2010-11-24 3:58 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman @ 2010-11-23 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-devel On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:10:59 +0100 >> >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> >> >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:57:39 +0100 >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> >> >> >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:56:11 +0100 >> >> >> Cc: sean.sieger@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Because it's pointless. If we want to give users release binaries >> >> >> >> > with debug info, we should just ship such a binary, period. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Please explain why you think that. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I just did, above. >> >> >> >> >> >> In what way is "pointless" an explanation? >> >> > >> >> > I meant the second sentence. >> >> >> >> Can you then explain if you think there is any reason not to ship the >> >> release binaries with debug info? >> > >> > I said it is slightly better, that's all. The reason is disk space, >> > of course: 30MB is a lot for a binary. >> >> Why do you then think it is pointless to ship both binaries with debug >> info and without it? > > It should be clear: it's even more disk space waste. Why do you think that giving the users the choice to download either binaries with debug info or without it is "even more disk space waste"? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 21:33 ` Lennart Borgman @ 2010-11-24 2:11 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2010-11-24 3:58 ` Eli Zaretskii 1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2010-11-24 2:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lennart Borgman; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, emacs-devel Lennart Borgman writes: > Why do you think that giving the users the choice to download either > binaries with debug info or without it is "even more disk space > waste"? The reason for making debug binaries available is to encourage their use. If there is good reason to encourage non-beta-testers to use debug binaries, then we should not ship non-debug binaries because debug binaries cost the user extra disk space, and (perhaps) a tiny bit of load time or run-time performance, and we need to overcome that disincentive. On the contrary, if there's no particular reason to encourage that, then we shouldn't impose the costs on users at all. Of course there may be some ambiguity, in which case offering the choice might be a good idea. But remember, this isn't like offering debug versions of standard libraries in an OS distro, where people may be building their apps with debug options, and need to trace a problem into the standard libraries. Rather, Emacs is an end-user application, and people who would be able and willing to debug at that level are very likely already beta testers, building with debug options on. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 21:33 ` Lennart Borgman 2010-11-24 2:11 ` Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2010-11-24 3:58 ` Eli Zaretskii 1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2010-11-24 3:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lennart Borgman; +Cc: emacs-devel > From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:33:04 +0100 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: > >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> > >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:10:59 +0100 > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: > >> >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> > >> >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:57:39 +0100 > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: > >> >> >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> > >> >> >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:56:11 +0100 > >> >> >> Cc: sean.sieger@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Because it's pointless. If we want to give users release binaries > >> >> >> >> > with debug info, we should just ship such a binary, period. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Please explain why you think that. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I just did, above. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> In what way is "pointless" an explanation? > >> >> > > >> >> > I meant the second sentence. > >> >> > >> >> Can you then explain if you think there is any reason not to ship the > >> >> release binaries with debug info? > >> > > >> > I said it is slightly better, that's all. The reason is disk space, > >> > of course: 30MB is a lot for a binary. > >> > >> Why do you then think it is pointless to ship both binaries with debug > >> info and without it? > > > > It should be clear: it's even more disk space waste. > > Why do you think that giving the users the choice to download either > binaries with debug info or without it is "even more disk space > waste"? Having both binaries in the same zip archive doesn't give users more choice. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 16:01 ` Sean Sieger 2010-11-23 16:18 ` Stefan Monnier 2010-11-23 18:39 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2010-11-23 23:00 ` Jason Rumney 2010-11-23 23:06 ` Lennart Borgman 2010-11-23 23:42 ` Drew Adams 2 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Jason Rumney @ 2010-11-23 23:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Sieger; +Cc: emacs-devel Sean Sieger <sean.sieger@gmail.com> writes: > Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> writes: > > I guess no debug info has been included (probably not a good idea for > snapshots). > > My bad: > > - Snapshots should or should not include debug info? > - Pretests should or should not include debug info? Snapshots and Pretests are primarily for testing, so including debug info is essential. > - Releases should or should not include debug info? In my experience, users complain (still in 2010) about the size of the binary if it changes drastically between releases. So shipping without debug info avoids such complaints at the expense that bugs are harder to debug (but most users that would be willing to debug for you will be using the snapshots or willing to build from source anyway). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 23:00 ` Jason Rumney @ 2010-11-23 23:06 ` Lennart Borgman 2010-11-24 4:06 ` Eli Zaretskii 2010-11-23 23:42 ` Drew Adams 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman @ 2010-11-23 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jason Rumney; +Cc: Sean Sieger, emacs-devel On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> wrote: > Sean Sieger <sean.sieger@gmail.com> writes: > >> Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> writes: >> >> I guess no debug info has been included (probably not a good idea for >> snapshots). >> >> My bad: >> >> - Snapshots should or should not include debug info? >> - Pretests should or should not include debug info? > > Snapshots and Pretests are primarily for testing, so including debug > info is essential. > >> - Releases should or should not include debug info? > > In my experience, users complain (still in 2010) about the size of the > binary if it changes drastically between releases. So shipping without > debug info avoids such complaints at the expense that bugs are harder to > debug (but most users that would be willing to debug for you will be > using the snapshots or willing to build from source anyway). I offer the same question as I did before: Is there any advantage of shipping both binaries with debug info and without it? (In separate downloads, of course.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 23:06 ` Lennart Borgman @ 2010-11-24 4:06 ` Eli Zaretskii 2010-11-24 14:34 ` Stefan Monnier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2010-11-24 4:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lennart Borgman; +Cc: sean.sieger, emacs-devel, jasonr > From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:06:42 +0100 > Cc: Sean Sieger <sean.sieger@gmail.com>, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > I offer the same question as I did before: Is there any advantage of > shipping both binaries with debug info and without it? (In separate > downloads, of course.) You never made clear that you are talking about separate downloads, until now. Having separate downloads is fine, assuming that Sean (or whoever prepares the zip archives) can handle the extra workload. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-24 4:06 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2010-11-24 14:34 ` Stefan Monnier 2010-11-25 23:43 ` Sean Sieger 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2010-11-24 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: sean.sieger, jasonr, Lennart Borgman, emacs-devel > You never made clear that you are talking about separate downloads, > until now. > Having separate downloads is fine, assuming that Sean (or whoever > prepares the zip archives) can handle the extra workload. Actually, this discussion made me realize that we want the release package to be distributed without debug info: if we need debug info we might as well ask the user to install the snapshot version. Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-24 14:34 ` Stefan Monnier @ 2010-11-25 23:43 ` Sean Sieger 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Sean Sieger @ 2010-11-25 23:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> writes: > - Releases should or should not include debug info? In my experience, users complain (still in 2010) about the size of the binary if it changes drastically between releases. So shipping without debug info avoids such complaints at the expense that bugs are harder to debug (but most users that would be willing to debug for you will be using the snapshots or willing to build from source anyway). Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes: Actually, this discussion made me realize that we want the release package to be distributed without debug info: if we need debug info we might as well ask the user to install the snapshot version. Thank you for your patience (I looked in my .notes: this is the second time both of you have told me this) and for thinking this out. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* RE: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 23:00 ` Jason Rumney 2010-11-23 23:06 ` Lennart Borgman @ 2010-11-23 23:42 ` Drew Adams 2010-11-24 2:15 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Drew Adams @ 2010-11-23 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Jason Rumney', 'Sean Sieger'; +Cc: emacs-devel > In my experience, users complain (still in 2010) about the size of the > binary if it changes drastically between releases. So shipping without > debug info avoids such complaints at the expense that bugs are harder to > debug Dumb question: Just what do you guys mean by "shipping"? Don't we just post the files on the Internet and let users download them? In that case, I would think that the only drawbacks to our providing both versions (debug or not) would be disk space at GNU (and other sites for downloading) and preparation time for Emacs developers (twice the work, whatever it might be). Users could themselves decide whether they want to pay the penalties of additional local disk space and increased download time (and build time?). What am I missing wrt "shipping"? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* RE: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-23 23:42 ` Drew Adams @ 2010-11-24 2:15 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2010-11-24 5:14 ` Drew Adams 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2010-11-24 2:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Drew Adams; +Cc: 'Sean Sieger', emacs-devel, 'Jason Rumney' Drew Adams writes: > Users could themselves decide whether they want to pay the penalties of > additional local disk space and increased download time (and build time?). Users have less information about the value of the debug information. If we encourage people who don't have gdb installed to use debug builds, what have we gained? :-) Making multiple builds available is an admin PITA (if you know how to do better, please advise, but that's been my experience) and the disk space can add up fast (since modularized installs are detested by most users; they want a one-file-download-and-no-questions-asked-install). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* RE: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-24 2:15 ` Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2010-11-24 5:14 ` Drew Adams 2010-11-24 9:56 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Drew Adams @ 2010-11-24 5:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Stephen J. Turnbull' Cc: 'Sean Sieger', emacs-devel, 'Jason Rumney' s> Making multiple builds available is an admin PITA (if you know how to s> do better, please advise, but that's been my experience) and the disk s> space can add up fast (since modularized installs are detested by most s> users; they want a one-file-download-and-no-questions-asked-install). Unless I'm missing something you are echoing what I said: d> In that case, I would think that the only drawbacks to d> our providing both versions (debug or not) would be disk d> space at GNU (and other sites for downloading) and d> preparation time for Emacs developers (twice the work, d> whatever it might be). I was asking whether those are the only drawbacks for Emacs dev - they are the only ones I could think of. You seem to be confirming that they are (and emphasizing their importance). "Shipping" seems to have disappeared from the discussion, so I suppose my guess that we don't do any shipping was also accurate. Thanks for the clarification. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* RE: emacs-20101122 windows binaries 2010-11-24 5:14 ` Drew Adams @ 2010-11-24 9:56 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2010-11-24 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Drew Adams; +Cc: 'Sean Sieger', 'Jason Rumney', emacs-devel Drew Adams writes: > Unless I'm missing something you are echoing what I said: Sorry 'bout that. Most of what you write is worth reading, but even so I run out of time. :-) > "Shipping" seems to have disappeared from the discussion, so I suppose my guess > that we don't do any shipping was also accurate. I know GNU does some shipping, I've seen the discs, but whether it's a real factor for Emacs somebody else would have to answer. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-11-25 23:43 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 27+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-11-22 22:11 emacs-20101122 windows binaries Sean Sieger 2010-11-23 2:20 ` Eric Lilja 2010-11-23 14:06 ` Eric Lilja 2010-11-23 15:02 ` Jason Rumney 2010-11-23 16:01 ` Sean Sieger 2010-11-23 16:18 ` Stefan Monnier 2010-11-23 18:39 ` Eli Zaretskii 2010-11-23 18:39 ` Lennart Borgman 2010-11-23 19:22 ` Eli Zaretskii 2010-11-23 19:28 ` Lennart Borgman 2010-11-23 19:52 ` Eli Zaretskii 2010-11-23 19:56 ` Lennart Borgman 2010-11-23 20:50 ` Eli Zaretskii [not found] ` <AANLkTimwK2svWBCGocR0zT5=qDsn3Z6=kUK=Wz0VqYYk@mail.gmail.com> [not found] ` <83d3pv92az.fsf@gnu.org> 2010-11-23 21:10 ` Lennart Borgman 2010-11-23 21:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 2010-11-23 21:33 ` Lennart Borgman 2010-11-24 2:11 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2010-11-24 3:58 ` Eli Zaretskii 2010-11-23 23:00 ` Jason Rumney 2010-11-23 23:06 ` Lennart Borgman 2010-11-24 4:06 ` Eli Zaretskii 2010-11-24 14:34 ` Stefan Monnier 2010-11-25 23:43 ` Sean Sieger 2010-11-23 23:42 ` Drew Adams 2010-11-24 2:15 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2010-11-24 5:14 ` Drew Adams 2010-11-24 9:56 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).