Retiring in-tree GDB

[Slawa Olhovchenkov]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:40:25PM -0700, Bryan Drewery wrote:

> 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.

Build time is wrong goal: end user don't need recompile system.
Right way: for general purpose (not embeded system and not kernel
developer) system don't need be recompiling. All features and tunuing
may be do by sysctl (prefer) or loader tunable. Tracking -STABLE may
be done in binary form, may be from private build server.

If you talk about recompile system and also talk "install compiler
package for system reompile" -- I am remeber badly Linux's time, with
incompatible combinations of kernel, userland, libc, compiler, package
manager and other hell.