Re: Final separate debug info patch

[Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>]

Alexander Larsson <alexl@redhat.com> writes:
> On 19 Nov 2002, Jim Blandy wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > > 
> > > > That makes sense to me. Uli? Is this ok with you?
> > > 
> > > I don't know.  I imagine that strip is used like this in the build root
> > > for the distribution.  By preserving the entire path lots on unusable
> > > information is leaked and distributed.  This is true for many situations.
> > > 
> > > Unless somebody can provide a really good reason why the entire path is
> > > needed I rather not change anything.
> > 
> > Well, my motivating case is a GDB test script that copies the
> > executable elsewhere.  At the moment, I can just override the
> > compilation procedure in the target board file and run the entire GDB
> > test suite against separated executables without modifying any of the
> > test scripts.  Except for this one test.  Now, if strip kept an
> > absolute path when it was given one, and GDB used it, then copying the
> > executable wouldn't hurt, and everything would just work.
> > 
> > If people don't want to include absolute paths, they don't have to
> > give one to strip, it seems to me.  Strip preserving what it's given
> > doesn't take away anyone's choices.
> 
> When i'm building in the build system i will always be using absolute 
> paths to put the files in the right place. For instance for /usr/bin/app 
> it will do -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/app.debug. So we will 
> leak some strange absolute paths. Of course, if gdb used the basename 
> when searching the global directories that wouldn't affect the result, but 
> it is sort of ugly.

I see.  I'm fine with leaving the behavior as it is.