On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 12:12:49PM -0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > [...] > > But done on a port-by-port opt-in basis for more important ports > (major libraries, for example) it might be viable. I think it would > need to use detached symbols in a subpackage - build with symbols, > then postprocess the various files, it looks like this might do the > trick > > objcopy --only-keep-debug $file $file.debug > objcopy --strip-debug $file > objcopy --add-gnu-debuglink $file.debug $file > > or > > llvm-objcopy --only-keep=debug $file $file.debug > llvm-objcopy --strip-debug $file > llvm-objcopy --add-gnu-debuglink $file.debug $file > > And then it needs additional infrastructure to handle putting these > into subpackages (which gets complicated where a port already uses > subpackages).
As I understand it, this is essentially what Debian does. See https://wiki.debian.org/HowToGetABacktrace#Installing_the_debugging_symbols. Like you say, reproducing a crash and getting a backtrace is not always easy, having matching debug symbols in a package would be useful. Debian makes these packages automatically now (as you likely know), after a decade (!!!) of thinking and implementation: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/12/msg00262.html. And decades of lots of people putting in the manual work to make -dbg packages. Since I'm not sending any diffs to implement this, and wouldn't even use the debug symbol packages, I'm not sure it would be worth the time for OpenBSD. > Unfortunately the tone of mazocomp's mail ather puts one off from > wanting to spend time on this... Maybe I need to polish my scorefile > as it only dropped the original mail not the replies :-) If demanding a feature rudely means devs won't implement it, maybe I should send a rude email demanding more bugs in OpenBSD :) -- Kaashif Hymabaccus GPG: 3E810B04
