Retiring in-tree GDB

[Bryan Drewery]

On 10/20/2015 2:25 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

Other things to consider is that this increases build time for a tool
that only developers need. Given it is not a drop-in replacement for
gdb, a tool that people have become accustomed to over several decades,
the bar for adding it into the base system should be higher.

-- 
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/f7c47261/attachment.bin>