[Development] Not stripping our binaries by default

[Thiago Macieira]

On sexta-feira, 14 de setembro de 2012 18.27.31, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> well, i disagree.
> if you want backtraces, not stripping some minor symbol tables doesn't
> buy you much; you need to force proper debug info on anyway.
> i also don't think that "end users" never build qt themselves. all kinds
> of non-desktop builds require manual building, and commercial users
> regularly customize their builds. think a bit outside the linux distro
> box, please.

I want to get a minimal backtrace from a crashing application in a production 
setting. Since we use hidden visibility by default in most of our classes (the 
internal ones), without debug symbols those show up only as ??.

I don't want to do debugging. I don't even need line numbers. I just want to 
have an idea where things are going.

> and, fwiw, i couldn't care less for the unsubstantiated complaints of
> packagers. they are the *last* consumers to think about - they can be
> expected to understand their job, and be willing to spend a few minutes
> on a package's nuances. it's not rocket science.

I disagree and I think we ought to think more about them. Especially since, 
without my fix, they had to patch Qt.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
     Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
     Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20120915/ae37fbbb/attachment.sig>