[arch-general] debug package repositories again

[Joe Julian]

On 08/13/2015 06:55 AM, Evan Penner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev at umail.iu.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 03:11:58PM +0200, Evan Penner wrote:
>>>>> I would personally prefer that most packages come with debugging
>> enabled
>>>>> by
>>>>> default. Surely, there will be a performance cost, but speed is not
>>>>> crucial in
>>>>> most cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>> There's no performance impact, just disk space and bandwidth.
>>>>
>>> Bandwidth is probably the main problem, although anyone who wants to
>> debug
>>> will probably be fine with that.
>> I think you guys misunderstood me. The biggest problem IMHO with building
>> debug
>> versions locally is not compiling itself, but setting up the environment.
>> So, I
>> meant that packages come with debugging enabled (compiled with gcc -O0 -g
>> and
>> perhaps ./configure options). This way, there will be not many new
>> packages.
>>
>> Of course, this is not a good idea for things like FF/Gnome/KDE because of
>> a
>> slow-down, but a performance penalty for smaller programs like vim, links,
>> XFCE4 etc. will not be noticeable (at least I don't see any for a
>> self-compiled
>> xfce4 desktop on a single-core Intel Atom based netbook).
>>
> Right, I got it now. So ideally, you'd want all packages to come with debug
> flags enabled? I see how that would cause performance issues in larger
> applications,

False, see my previous reply.

> I understand however the concern for those packages. The
> problem is performance as you said. However, creating a new repository
> would increase the Arch database by twofold.

False. Plus, the debug symbols *could* be in a separate package database 
that would be manually enabled by the people with the skills to know how 
to use them. People that actually use this distro professionally to 
build some really cool stuff (plugging IO, my employer, here).

>   This is a concept the devs
> will have to take a look at. For now, I guess, your only option is to
> compile them yourself.