Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 01:47:20PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 07:13:35PM +0200, Max Laier wrote:
> >
> >>Why is this discussion ongoing? The consensus seems pretty clear: 
> >>"Implement it, but have a make.conf option to turn it off." If there is 
> >>concern with this make if default to off and have an option to turn it on.
> >>
> >
> >Implementing this is very easy, since it's already implemented,
> >just not by default.
> >
> >What everyone seem to have forgotten is that we also have modules,
> >and in the "config -g" case, we also build debug versions of the
> >modules.  And if we're also going to install modules with debug
> >symbols, I think this puts the requirement for the root file
> >system way beyond the rational limits.
> >
> >
> >Cheers,
> 
> I tend to agree.  What do you think of my proposal to have installkernel
> (optionally or whatever) put unstriped binaries somewhere outside of the
> root partition?
> 
Do you mean installing what we already have as a result of building
a debug kernel?  In that case, this is already easily done by:

	make buildkernel CONFIGARGS=-g
	make installkernel
	mkdir -p /usr/somewhere
	make installkernel.debug KODIR=/usr/somewhere

As a result of running this, I have:

ru# ls -1 /usr/somewhere/ |grep '\.ko\.debug' |wc -l
     386
ru# ls -1 /usr/somewhere/ | grep -v '\.ko\.debug' 
kernel.debug
linker.hints


Cheers,
-- 
Ruslan Ermilov
ru_at_FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer