Retiring in-tree GDB

[Bryan Drewery]

On 10/20/2015 1:36 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> However, I would like to propose that we retire the in-tree GDB for some of
> our platforms (namely x86) for 11.  In particular, I think we should default

Disabling/removing gdb. Definitely. It is unusable in many cases and the
working gdb is just a 'pkg install' away.

> to enabling lldb and disabling gdb for platforms that meet the following

Why should we include lldb in the base system? It is not needed to build
or use the system and we can easily provide one from packages.

Arguments about providing a default working system don't work here for
me as we don't provide perl, python, valgrind, vim, emacs, X11, etc.  We
can provide lldb and gdb on the default DVD though.

If we are actually going to "package base" in 11, we should not be
adding new things into base that can easily live in ports. Yes, I know
lldb is already there but I don't think it should be.

Can the same be said for tools such as truss, ktrace or nvi? Sure. The
discussion is really "what packages should be installed by default".
The answer should be "what all, or most, users _need_" Do most users
need a debugger? I don't think so.

> criteria:
> 
> 1) devel/gdb works including thread and kgdb support
> 2) lldb works


-- 
Regards,
Bryan Drewery

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20151020/0f13c634/attachment.bin>