On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:47 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > I can't speak to Trever's case, but I can say that it's pretty
> > irritating to need debuginfo for every compiler in gcc when all I really
> > need is debuginfo for libgcc:
> >
> > atropine:~% stat -c %s /usr/lib/debug/lib/libgcc_s-*debug
> > 327080
> > atropine:~% rpm -qf --qf="%{size} %{name}\n" /usr/lib/debug/lib/libgcc_s*debug
> > 329486271 gcc-debuginfo
> >
> > So subpackaged debuginfo would actually be pretty nice. gcc is
> > admittedly something of an outlier here, I admit; I don't think most
> > packages need subpackaged debuginfo, but the ones that do...
>
> Wasn't debuginfofs supposed to solve that ?
In the sense of reducing disk needs on the clients, yes. But on the
server, you'd still be unpacking >300M of gcc-debuginfo just to get at
libgcc's debuginfo. So subpackaging debuginfo would still be a win even
with debuginfofs, since you'd be improving the cache behaviour on the
server.
- ajax
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
