Retiring in-tree GDB

[Slawa Olhovchenkov]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:25:48PM -0700, 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.

When you need debuger you may don't have way to install it.