Re: Debugging and source code

[Ludovic Courtès]

Pjotr Prins <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:54:30PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Pjotr Prins <address@hidden> skribis:
>> 
>> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:22:48PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> >> You can always get the right source code by running “guix build -S
>> >> package”.
>> >> 
>> >> OTOH having the source directly in the “debug” (or “source”?) output as
>> >> you suggest would be more convenient.
>> >> 
>> >> The only downside is the extra size of the “debug” output.  Most of the
>> >> time that’s a price people are happy to pay when they are installing the
>> >> “debug” output.  But sometimes maybe not.
>> >
>> > How about a :debug-full switch?
>> 
>> There’s no switch, only a “debug” output.
>
> yes, yes. I meant a "debug-full" output.

I don’t think we should have both “debug” and “debug-full”.

Instead, the possible options I see are:

  0. Status quo: people need to get the source by themselves with “guix
     build -S”.

  1. The “debug” output, when it exists, always includes the source.

  2. When a “source” output exists, the source code is copied there.
     The “debug” output contains nothing more than debugging info, as is
     currently the case.

We’ve already discussed #1.

With #2, we’d have to manually opt-in in package recipes.  So we could
have:

  (package
    (output '("out" "debug"))  ;like now
    …)

or:

  (package
    (output '("out" "source" "debug"))
    …)

Maybe that’s too inconvenient though.

Thoughts?

Ludo’.