Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?]

From: Garance A Drosihn (drosih_at_rpi.edu)
Date: 10/20/04

  • Next message: Julian Elischer: "Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?]"
    Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:30:25 -0400
    To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org>
    
    

    At 1:47 PM -0600 10/20/04, Scott Long wrote:
    >Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
    >>On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 07:13:35PM +0200, Max Laier wrote:
    >>
    >>>Why is this discussion ongoing? The consensus seems pretty
    >>>clear: "Implement it, but have a make.conf option to turn
    >>>it off." If there is concern with this, make it default to
    >>>off and have an option to turn it on.
    >>
    >>Implementing this is very easy, since it's already implemented,
    >>just not by default.
    >>
    >>What everyone seem to have forgotten is that we also have modules,
    >>and in the "config -g" case, we also build debug versions of the
    >>modules. And if we're also going to install modules with debug
    >>symbols, I think this puts the requirement for the root file
    >>system way beyond the rational limits.
    >
    >I tend to agree. What do you think of my proposal to have
    >installkernel (optionally or whatever) put unstriped binaries
    >somewhere outside of the root partition?

    A long time ago I had an update which allowed the person to set
    where the debug version of kernels and modules would go, based on
    some environment variable in make.conf. I am pretty sure I even
    posted it. But it was for 4-STABLE, and the feedback was that it
    should first go into 5-current. This made a lot of sense, of
    course, but *I* only needed it on my 4.x-stable system... There
    were also major changes in the build process between 4-stable and
    5-current, so I never reworked that change. It was much easier
    to just create a larger root partition on my 5.x test system...

    Hmm. I might even have that disk still spinning around somewhere.
    Yes, I seem to have it. Frightening! What I seem to have is a
    patch to 4.x (as of Nov 20 2001), which adds support for a
    KERNSAVDBGDIR= environment variable. It modifies sys/conf/kmod.mk
    and sys/conf/Makefile.i386 . I am not sure how useful it would be,
    seeing that it's for the wrong branch and it is from so long ago.
    But if people are interested, I could look into that.

    In any case, we could also change this so that the kernel is not
    stripped by default, but still leave modules stripped by default.
    What I think is important is that the default, generic install
    will set up users with a kernel that has SOME symbols in it. As
    I say, right now we're in the situation where we install one
    thing (stripped kernel & modules), but as soon as anyone reports
    a problem we tell them to build a non-stripped kernel or we can
    not help them.

    If the "rational" root partition is too small for a non-stripped
    kernel, then users are screwed when we given them that advice. So
    we need to change our definition of a rational root partition, or
    we simply admit that we (as developers) are not rational. Changing
    the *default* kernel that we install does not effect the actual size
    of a kernel which is USEFUL for debugging. The only thing we are
    changing is whether users START OUT with a useful debugging kernel.

    -- 
    Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
    Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad@freebsd.org
    Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih@rpi.edu
    _______________________________________________
    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"
    

  • Next message: Julian Elischer: "Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?]"

    Relevant Pages

    • input method on fc3?
      ... FC3 and soundcard ... >> without problems and sound works fine. ... What modules were loaded with kernel ... I can install and configure samba on Linux as easily as I can install ...
      (Fedora)
    • Fedora Core 2, Averatec 3220 notebook
      ... I recently bought an Averatec 3220 notebook computer and have spent some ... Following is a detailed "howto" guide for installing Linux (Fedora Core ... Linux distro, which is easy to install and use, and for lots of answers ... We need one because the default Fedora Core kernel doesn't grok NTFS ...
      (Fedora)
    • Re: install woes
      ... looking at the Fedora 9 64bit DVD: ... I'd try the acpi=off, but I didn't need any boot options, as far as I remember ... appended the kernel, probably post-install. ... but on attempting to install, it freezes up at the test media screen. ...
      (Fedora)
    • Yum upgrade from F8 to F8 with KDE desktop - installation notes
      ... nVidia drivers from Freshrpms, and I had to install the latest nVidia driver ... kernel in step 5; once I did that, the dkms package (which gets installed from ... relevant info to do a yum upgrade a bit daunting. ... Use your preferred method to install the above file: ...
      (Fedora)
    • Yum upgrade from F8 to F9 with KDE desktop - installation notes
      ... nVidia drivers from Freshrpms, and I had to install the latest nVidia driver ... kernel in step 5; once I did that, the dkms package (which gets installed from ... Use your preferred method to install the above file: ...
      (Fedora)

  • Quantcast