Comment 25 for bug 56587

On 9/29/06, François Isabelle <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> Hi I have 2 questions related to this bug:
>
> John, how did you exactly reproduced the problem ? [what arguments ?] Did
> you run usplash from the console directly ? In my case this does not make it
> crash. Do you manually issue usplash_write commands ? Which ones ?

I simply ran "sudo usplash" at a console, and that was enough to make it
segfault. This is on an AMD64 with an NVIDIA video card.... usplash does not
crash on any of my other hardware, nor does it crash in 32-bit mode on the
same system.

All, why would the usplash package need to be "unstripped" ? What is
> the benefit now to strip it in the first place ? Is this common to a lot
> of ubuntu packages ? How fat does it grow when unstripped ? Anyone here
> can approciate the time saved when the package ships unstripped.
> Stripped binaries are required when disk space is an issue AND binaries
> are fully stable, I don't want to start a debate, just want to know
> what's the "ubuntu" option on this.

Virtually all packages are stripped. It does save considerable disk space,
not to mention smaller binaries have a better chance of ending up in the
disk cache for an appreciable amount of time. There's some work towards
automatically-installable debuginfo packages that the Ubuntu crash handler
would install upon a crash, you can read about that in this week's Ubuntu
Weekly News.