On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 02:26:39PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 11.11.24 14:11, Niels Thykier wrote: >... > > Currently, we are looking at about 260 packages that are tweaking or > > working around `dh_dwz` in its current form (search for > > `override_dh_dwz` on codesearch.d.n) in some way or another. > > > > I think we should reconsider having `dh_dwz` on by default. At this > > point, I am contemplating to pull it out in compat 14. > > Can you consider keeping that on architectures, where dwz is used by > Fedora/RedHat? >...
Why would this be desirable? This is not a rhetorical question. Quoting from my original bug report 2 years ago: These optimizations are only in the -dbgsym packages that nearly noone installs and nearly noone uses. Debug info is super useful when needed, but it is not installed by default and dwz optimizations have little practical relevance in the cases when it is used. Buildd speed is a larger bottleneck than server space, even if dwz worked flawlessly I could only barely see how it is worth it. Regarding limiting dwz to Fedora/RedHat architectures, we have in the past years seen plenty of cases where dwz choked on all architectures on what e.g. a new LLVM version produced. Is there any benefit of dwz I miss? > Matthias cu Adrian
