On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 10:10 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 05/25/2012 09:26 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 13:20 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:28:16AM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> >>> I'm at a loss to how to proceed with the MiniDebugInf
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 21:49 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> The right way is probably to write a feature page for F18 for it, and
>> then get it through Fedora 18 feature process. With FESCO accepting the
>> feature you should have al
On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 21:49 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 24.05.12 09:28, Alexander Larsson (al...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > I'm at a loss to how to proceed with the MiniDebugInfo work. I have
> > patches to rpmbuild that creates the compressed minidebuginfo putting
> > them in the mai
On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 16:12 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:50:31 +0200, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > - You're in IRC or email, and all the bug reporter has given you is a
> > random copy and paste from their terminal. They don't care to open
> > a bug; they don't much c
On Thu, 24.05.12 09:28, Alexander Larsson (al...@redhat.com) wrote:
> I'm at a loss to how to proceed with the MiniDebugInfo work. I have
> patches to rpmbuild that creates the compressed minidebuginfo putting
> them in the main binaries, and I have patches to gdb that reads the
> compressed debug
On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 11:50 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 04:43:12PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2012 16:35:57 +0200, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > > jan.kratochvil wrote:
> > > > If your feature does not solve any problem it is just a bloat.
> > >
>
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I'll add one more case, which seems to happen to me all the time:
>
> - You're in IRC or email, and all the bug reporter has given you is a
> random copy and paste from their terminal. They don't care to open
> a bug; they don't much
On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:50:31 +0200, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> - You're in IRC or email, and all the bug reporter has given you is a
> random copy and paste from their terminal. They don't care to open
> a bug; they don't much care about anything except getting a fix.
>
> Minidebuginfo would
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 04:43:12PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 16:35:57 +0200, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > jan.kratochvil wrote:
> > > If your feature does not solve any problem it is just a bloat.
> >
> > This overstates the case. Alex's proposal clearly solves some proble
On 05/25/2012 09:26 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 13:20 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:28:16AM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
I'm at a loss to how to proceed with the MiniDebugInfo work. I have
patches to rpmbuild that creates the compressed minidebu
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 13:20 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:28:16AM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > I'm at a loss to how to proceed with the MiniDebugInfo work. I have
> > patches to rpmbuild that creates the compressed minidebuginfo putting
> > them in the main binaries
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 22:24 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> Wrt upstreaming the patch to FSF GDB first it can be posted but I would
> keep it for a release or two only downstream, it is simple enough patch, there
> may be found some issues with its practical use (if any) etc.
I agree with Jan. The
On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:53:48 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> So, where to go from here? For the gdb change, I think the ideal case
> would be to push the gdb support upstream (I have no idea what
> upstream thinks, though), second best is to convince Jan and Sergio.
I have no problems accepting th
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> I don't think there has to be a specific "problem". In fact, I think
> Fedora shouldn't really care what *my* problem is. What is interesting
> is: I have this feature; It has a certain cost (increase in size) and it
> gives certain featu
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 07:27:03PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 19:20:15 +0200, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> > Just go do it. See who actually shows up to stop you.
>
> I am sure this is significant enough distro change to require FESCo decision.
Still cuts his workload down from c
On Thu, 24 May 2012 19:20:15 +0200, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> Just go do it. See who actually shows up to stop you.
I am sure this is significant enough distro change to require FESCo decision.
Regards,
Jan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:28:16AM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> I'm at a loss to how to proceed with the MiniDebugInfo work. I have
> patches to rpmbuild that creates the compressed minidebuginfo putting
> them in the main binaries, and I have patches to gdb that reads the
> compressed debugin
On 05/24/2012 07:09 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 11:06 -0400, Karel Klic wrote:
For developers, it is unappealing to attempt fixing a bug just from
an ordered list of function names.
Sometimes. Other times, it's all I need if I have other data at hand
(for example, the git
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 11:06 -0400, Karel Klic wrote:
> For developers, it is unappealing to attempt fixing a bug just from
> an ordered list of function names.
Sometimes. Other times, it's all I need if I have other data at hand
(for example, the git log for the code that's crashing).
--
deve
IMHO administrators would benefit much more from the minidebuginfo
feature than developers. The advantage for admins is that for every
crash the computer would also give a "name" of the crash. So it's
no longer just "httpd: Core dumped.", but you get a unique sequence
of functions (a "name") and
On Thu, 24 May 2012 16:35:57 +0200, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> jan.kratochvil wrote:
> > If your feature does not solve any problem it is just a bloat.
>
> This overstates the case. Alex's proposal clearly solves some problems.
This is just about wording.
My reaction was to:
I don't thin
jan.kratochvil wrote:
> If your feature does not solve any problem it is just a bloat.
This overstates the case. Alex's proposal clearly solves some problems.
- FChE
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 04:19:15PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> "do better" is too ambiguous and probably not right. Duplication matching can
> be always done server-side. Minidebuginfo may give less load for ABRT servers
> for example, this does not match the "do better" phrase.
And the symbo
On Thu, 24 May 2012 15:34:28 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> I don't think there has to be a specific "problem". In fact, I think
> Fedora shouldn't really care what *my* problem is. What is interesting
> is: I have this feature; It has a certain cost (increase in size) and it
> gives certain fea
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 14:46 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:07:06 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> There are many ways how to solve this problem, unfortunately nobody knows what
> is your problem, there are too many close but still different problems in this
> basket. You h
On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:07:06 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> 2) The results of the MiniDebugInfo is not perfect, and
>there is a theoretically perfect approach. So we should not
>spend time/energy/space/bits/whatever on the non-perfect
>appraoch.
>However, the perfect approach h
On 05/24/2012 11:24 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 11:17 +0200, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 05/24/2012 11:07 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 11:22 +0300, Yanko Kaneti wrote:
The duplication of effort less so IMHO, as different people are doing
the work. If w
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 11:17 +0200, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> On 05/24/2012 11:07 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 11:22 +0300, Yanko Kaneti wrote:
> >
> > The duplication of effort less so IMHO, as different people are doing
> > the work. If we don't do minidebug I will not be s
On 05/24/2012 11:07 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 11:22 +0300, Yanko Kaneti wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 09:35 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:28:16 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
However, the whole thing is useless unless we agree that we want to
enab
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 11:22 +0300, Yanko Kaneti wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 09:35 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:28:16 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > > However, the whole thing is useless unless we agree that we want to
> > > enable this by default. It seems some pe
On 05/24/2012 10:28 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
I'm at a loss to how to proceed with the MiniDebugInfo work. I have
patches to rpmbuild that creates the compressed minidebuginfo putting
them in the main binaries, and I have patches to gdb that reads the
compressed debuginfo on demand.
However,
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 09:35 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:28:16 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > However, the whole thing is useless unless we agree that we want to
> > enable this by default. It seems some people like the idea, whereas
> > others disagree that its worth
On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:28:16 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> However, the whole thing is useless unless we agree that we want to
> enable this by default. It seems some people like the idea, whereas
> others disagree that its worth the increased binary size. It doesn't
> look like either side is
I'm at a loss to how to proceed with the MiniDebugInfo work. I have
patches to rpmbuild that creates the compressed minidebuginfo putting
them in the main binaries, and I have patches to gdb that reads the
compressed debuginfo on demand.
However, the whole thing is useless unless we agree that we
34 matches
Mail list logo
