Hi - npopov wrote: > Thanks! If you still have the rpm, would you mind also sharing how large > the installed size is? (Via something like rpm2cpio > llvm-static-20.1.7-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm | cpio -idmv followed by du -sh usr). Certainly: before: 366M after: 2.5G > I'd expect that the new source files are primarily coming from things that > are only shipped statically, such as compiler-rt builtins (LLVM's > equivalent of libgcc). Yeah. > So in our situation the ideal would probably be to have debuginfo > for only some subpackages such as compiler-rt (relatively small and > mostly static-only), but not others like llvm-static (LLVM in Fedora > is usually linked dynamically, which already has debuginfo). Sure, though this extra data is for debugging those binaries that link against the static libs, not those others that link against the shared ones. The existence of the latter doesn't help debug the former. :-) > But if we have to make a choice for the whole package, keeping the status > quo of stripping debuginfo is probably best. Actually, you could get the best of both worlds by manually stripping those static libraries you don't want dwarf for, in your spec file %build, and let the new-proposed default preserve everything else. - FChE -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
