From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:06:42 +0100 Message-ID: References: <8762vpj9ep.fsf@gmail.com> <87d3pwt759.fsf@home.jasonrumney.net> <871v6cjagz.fsf@gmail.com> <874ob7tzlr.fsf@home.jasonrumney.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1290554013 2587 80.91.229.12 (23 Nov 2010 23:13:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:13:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Sean Sieger , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jason Rumney Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 24 00:13:28 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PL23D-0002I0-K8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:13:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44055 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PL23C-0006vd-Gl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:13:26 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50178 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PL1x3-0003Gv-Ud for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:07:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PL1x2-0001hB-9q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:07:05 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ew0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41]:60079) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PL1x2-0001gg-0o; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:07:04 -0500 Original-Received: by ewy21 with SMTP id 21so7087221ewy.0 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:07:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=pSgzmLUv3RVC6FBYT2Jc8b2xzTCB9k8bX+Uh1radKM0=; b=U9GvWE26tlj79Ff3ery28/22zWmpxZ7UkeG3sizJBTngCRxmlXy54XkZbvCGEcIsPS GYmCb+fx7cAB0H4rP2+h5cMb16NvjJYoauj0/HRgGaWu5BsOWIm2EcHVOtwa50ZdkuSO 3X0KDTK91PTu5a5ipL/4DLPxasbCAKlbVbQpA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ZvxOXy902Gx7lv7tceQJgXrtGOM+2r4K7opUUK2o2MO5xNLuM+0ZDNlF9coA1PZ5Bt jyEKPDYtDSmW30/nxgNUElrzXKGA75VtmcK1ECIzhppChcQ1jmaAo+sGco1PKPwz1p10 DcLwlQdnIwcgnnhHh8AQneOiPTU2yY4WN1nq8= Original-Received: by 10.213.112.144 with SMTP id w16mr4565432ebp.84.1290553623032; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:07:03 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.213.34.199 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:06:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <874ob7tzlr.fsf@home.jasonrumney.net> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:133099 Archived-At: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Jason Rumney wrote: > Sean Sieger writes: > >> Jason Rumney writes: >> >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I guess no debug info has been included (probably not a go= od idea for >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 snapshots). >> >> My bad: >> >> =C2=A0- Snapshots should or should not include debug info? >> =C2=A0- Pretests should or should not include debug info? > > Snapshots and Pretests are primarily for testing, so including debug > info is essential. > >> =C2=A0- 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.)