Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?]
From: Matthew Dillon (dillon_at_apollo.backplane.com)
Date: 10/20/04
- Previous message: Dimitry Andric: "Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?]"
- In reply to: Julian Elischer: "Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?]"
- Next in thread: Michael Nottebrock: "Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?]"
- Reply: Michael Nottebrock: "Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:29:48 -0700 (PDT) To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
The key point here, folks, is the KISS principle. The idea is to make
life easier for (1) inexperienced BSD users especially those who are
doing new installs from scratch and (2) the developers that have to field
bug reports from the former, and (3) To do it without adding more confusion
or complication to the installation operation or the recovery/savecore
operation or the directory layout. God knows you have enough of that
already. savecore already copies /kernel to /var/crash, I'm just making
it copy a kernel with debug symbols for convenience. People already gdb
running kernels, I'm just making it easier to do so without having to
save a separate copy of the kernel.debug somewhere else where it winds
up getting out of sync with what is actually running. We already have to
field lots of bug reports from users who know enough to get a core, but
don't have a useful kernel to debug the core with. This saves a step.
In fact, we enable core dumps in our installs now and once we fix up
/var/crash's size (for new installs), even total newbies will be able to
provide useful cores to us.
That is what is being addressed here.
The idea is decidedly NOT to hack things to pieces with alternative
debug files that will confuse more people then it helps, even if you
do make 'savecore' do the right thing. And the idea is most decidedly
NOT to make things easier for the *experienced* developers who cannot
otherwise be bothered to add a simple option to their kernel config
to revert to a stripped install if space is an issue, or add a single
strip command to their full custom flash card installer, or things of
that ilk. Those are really silly arguments IMHO.
In anycase, the only real issue vis-a-vie FreeBSD is the space
consideration on your CDs, and that only effects the decision whether
to include a debug kernel on the CD or a stripped kernel on the CD and
doesn't really prevent implementation of the idea generally. As Julian
said (and I brought this up on our lists too), it's easy enough for the
installer to strip the kernel it installs. I would strongly recommend
making the room, because a release CD hits the target audience for this
square on the peg. We've been going with packageless and sourceless
release CDs and only one or two people grumbled about having to download
things over a modem, and even those had downloaded the ISO over their
modem so it wouldn't even have helped to include them on the CD.
pkg_add -r is your friend, and the internet is now far more wide-spread
then it was a decade ago. Maybe the time is ripe for the change in your
HEAD.
-Matt
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Dimitry Andric: "Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?]"
- In reply to: Julian Elischer: "Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?]"
- Next in thread: Michael Nottebrock: "Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?]"
- Reply: Michael Nottebrock: "Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
