On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 09:55:15AM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 02:00:51PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > I think we ought to even consider adding gdb in addition to strace, size > > allowing, since these two tools are rather complementary in their use; but > > certainly, I'd prefer having strace over not having either. > > I disagree. I use strace a lot and it is very handy to verify that a > service really uses the config/data files it is supposed to use or does > it react to a network packet or not even if it does not log anything > etc. OTOH gdb is only useful if you really know the internals of the > thing and you at least have debugging symbols installed (which is still > not available for the majority of packages). If you only have a binary > compiled with -O2 and no debugging symbols, and you do not have deep > understanding of the internal working of the program, then gdb is > practically useless.
I don't think gdb is considered, due to its size. Just for the record, however: It is also useful for submitting bug reports for someone with deeper understanding. ulimit -c unlimited proggie gdb -c core /usr/bin/proggie # bt # bt full doesn't take much teaching. Debug symbols are often available in -dbg packages. Other are hopefully found at http://debug.debian.net/ in -dbgsym packages (different suffix, same meaning). They can be installed after the crash, as long as the versions still match. -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il | | best ICQ# 16849754 | | friend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
