From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pjotr Prins Subject: Re: Debugging and source code Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 04:03:27 +0000 Message-ID: <20170126040327.GB10299@mail.thebird.nl> References: <20170125065343.GB6221@mail.thebird.nl> <877f5jxoif.fsf@gnu.org> <20170125214109.7b62a627@scratchpost.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40471) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cWbKR-0000A5-TB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 23:06:32 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cWbKN-0005z6-J5 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 23:06:31 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170125214109.7b62a627@scratchpost.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Danny Milosavljevic Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 09:41:09PM +0100, Danny Milosavljevic wrote: > Hi, >=20 > On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:22:48 +0100 > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: >=20 > > Pjotr Prins skribis: > >=20 > > > Since we allow for debug symbols using :debug (great feature!),=20 >=20 > Aha? Why's that not available in our icecat package? I have to find out= how it's done elsewhere and copy it :) The beauty of it that it is already there - at least for the gnu build system. Just add the debug output. > > You can always get the right source code by running =E2=80=9Cguix bui= ld -S > > package=E2=80=9D. > >=20 > > OTOH having the source directly in the =E2=80=9Cdebug=E2=80=9D (or =E2= =80=9Csource=E2=80=9D?) output as > > you suggest would be more convenient. > >=20 > > The only downside is the extra size of the =E2=80=9Cdebug=E2=80=9D ou= tput. Most of the > > time that=E2=80=99s a price people are happy to pay when they are ins= talling the > > =E2=80=9Cdebug=E2=80=9D output. But sometimes maybe not. >=20 > Ahhh that's a difficult call. I think it would be best if we collected = some statistics before we decided that. For example how big is the source= code of a package versus the binary? On average? Depending on the langua= ge? How many % of the total size is the source code? If we add debug output by default I suppose we don't have to distribute binary packages. Likewise an output with source code included. That means there would be no cost involved other than building and testing. --=20