From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 19 15:27:50 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A53106567B for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:27:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from masoom.shaikh@gmail.com) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.239]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A778FC17 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:27:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from masoom.shaikh@gmail.com) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so155rvf.43 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:27:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=VPRF5S+gFAHh7P+LbP33hN/eLXZKqjLevuKzfHCNsMc=; b=l6aaAZHy1SrOtJXHAt11t1/yTv5rPtHmW3cnEKwZj7uoGFOc5pSKLCKjHdXY2B0YIg HjDfceFlSgrwsZemLDCqpbbTgc6ipZi3mRTNkOuqXlKhIGfyaI91T4axr8wmdXQJJ0b9 s2usKAVwAIf0l9utCWSSJsbLitfnToH5zbmco= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=LhLElVVA3YgsJbsyHFwqhpWZP7nSbT5q3x2o8a4xYVpxkB6+1QAOTUE7ukVc94p1NL QpoIYEDEsAuIzeo2uCFvZvTG55gPpJuTTcVuBukepM4kJAqeZCXfukFS4ITAFbACy9xI ajPV2JFREmtaRHg4nnbBmWMHxG/tgfXGANyeI= Received: by 10.141.122.1 with SMTP id z1mr640152rvm.210.1227108469485; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:27:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.35.8 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:27:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:27:49 +0000 From: "Masoom Shaikh" To: "Jeremy Chadwick" In-Reply-To: <20081119053859.GA77425@icarus.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20081119053859.GA77425@icarus.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: large binary, why not strip ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:27:50 -0000 On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 08:42:12AM +0000, Masoom Shaikh wrote: > > most of the programs installed from ports have large binary size on disk > > > > stripping em all reduces their size dramatically > > > > I cannot see the reason for not stripping them by default ? > > > > do I miss anything ? > > I haven't seen anyone point out the downside to stripping binaries and > libraries: removal of debugging symbols. Agreed. But not every 'user' is interested in backtrace. It can be argued user can send the trace to someone who is. Well my only point is choice, I should have choice to install un-stripped bins only if I wish, since for those who have no idea what such symbols are, backtrace is some kind of boring text. I don't like bins for which `nm` does not give me symbols :) I was just wondering if installing stripped bins may save small space for those of whom PC means mail, IM, mp3, orkut etc.... "The apebajs program suddenly > crashes in some library, here's the now-completely-useless backtrace". > The user is then forced to go back and recompile *everything* to get > debugging symbols. > > The non-stripping situation is on a per-port basis, AFAIK. Not all > ports have WITH_DEBUG. > > -- > | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | > | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | > | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | > | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | > >