On Saturday, February 27 2021, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Sat, 2021-02-27 at 11:21 -0500, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >> On Saturday, February 27 2021, Ian Campbell wrote: >> > >> > FWIW that would be my personal preference too (probably with some sort >> > of cache, maybe once per library or executable or some granularity like >> > that)... >> >> BTW, libdebuginfod (which is the library that performs the download from >> the client side) does keep a cache of what's been downloaded, so that >> part at least has been addressed. > > That's good, of course, but I was talking about a cache of the user > opt-in responses rather than asking for permission literally every time > something needed downloading.
Let me first clarify that it's libdebuginfod (from elfutils) that does the heavy work of downloading the files here. If you're suggesting that the each client that links against libdebuginfod (like GDB) should first ask the user whether she wants to download things from a debuginfod server, then OK. If you're suggesting that the client (e.g. GDB) should ask the user permission before downloading the debuginfo for each library/application, then I disagree. This would obviously bother the user with a lot of questions and make the experience far from pleasant. But I'm assuming that's not what you're suggesting. Anyway, as I said before, I don't intend to work on this specific idea right away, and I don't know if I understand the pushback I'm seeing against using a debconf question for this. It seems to me that this is exactly why debconf exists (see the popcon package), and it already has a cache for the answer. I'm planning to update my MR to elfutils this weekend. Thanks, -- Sergio GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36 Please send encrypted e-mail if possible https://sergiodj.net/
