Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 9 Dec 2003 06:03:05 +1100
From:      Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>
To:        Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>
Cc:        cvs-all@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC src/sys/alpha/conf GENERIC src/sys/sparc64/conf GENERIC src/sys/amd64/conf GENERIC src/sys/pc98/conf GENERIC
Message-ID:  <20031208190305.GA956@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <200312072352.hB7Nqsw6011333@repoman.freebsd.org>
References:  <200312072352.hB7Nqsw6011333@repoman.freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 03:52:54PM -0800, Scott Long wrote:
>scottl      2003/12/07 15:52:54 PST
>
>  FreeBSD src repository
>
>  Modified files:        (Branch: RELENG_5_2)
>    sys/i386/conf        GENERIC 
>    sys/alpha/conf       GENERIC 
>    sys/sparc64/conf     GENERIC 
>    sys/amd64/conf       GENERIC 
>    sys/pc98/conf        GENERIC 
>  Log:
>  Don't build a kernel.debug for the release.

Out of interest, why not?  The first request for additional
information after a panic report is virtually always to perform a
backtrace against a debug kernel to get line numbers.  IMHO, having a
debug kernel supplied with -RELEASE would seem very useful for people
who don't rebuild their kernel.  Note that, last time I checked, it
is not at all clear that '-g' does not change the generated code so
you can't guarantee to be able to do a '-g' build after the fact and
generate a traceback.

I'm not suggesting that kernel.debug has to be part of CD 1, but I
believe it would make a worthwhile addition to (eg) the live
filesystem CD.

Peter



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031208190305.GA956>