[Development] Not stripping our binaries by default

[Laszlo Papp]

>
> There's a huge difference between stripping the binaries and the format of
> the
> package. In one case, it's a minor nuisance to some that in no way prevents
> work from happening (there's a .gz) and it's quickly going away as
> technology
> improves.
>
> In the other, it's a major problem that requires a non-trivial process of
> investigating why the build process produced small debuginfo packages
> (first
> problem: they might not notice the issue), is quite non-standard and, up
> until
> now, required reading the qmake source code to figure out how to patch a
> solution.
>
> I'm sure you see the huge gap between those two cases.
>
> If you reply to this email to continue arguing your case, please include
> the
> words, "Yes, I understand they are totally different" before adding your
> new
> arguments.
>

Yes, I understand they are totally different beucase...

Your situation is a minor issue which may be well solved in a short while.
It can be addressed here and right now with a change, meanwhile the tarball
distribution is technological problem and until all the tools support us
packagers underneath, it cannot be solved. It is most likely not any near
future.

The problem was not with your proposal, but the fact how you do not wish to
have a support in the near future. This is a pain for certain packagers
already for a period we do not yet know. May be 1-2 weeks, 1-2 years, or
even more. It remains to be seen. That is why we requested at least an
interim support from the Qt Project. We did not get it, so I handled this
as an official statement for not supporting packagers as much as possible.

Hence, I do not personally consider your concern now valid. I think the
minor and major qualifiers as you introduced those, are in the opposite
order.


>
> > Moreover, why would they have to do that if there is an option as planned
> > previously?
>
> There was no option previously planned. I'm adding one now. So read what I
> said: "without my fix, they had to patch Qt".
>

Except that Ossi did say in this thread what would be preferable. That does
not mean it has to be default.

In addition, I agree with Ossi in that sense you would need a debug build
for a useful debugging if you are a developer building from source anyway.

Laszlo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20120915/436b7404/attachment.html>