Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:32:35 +1030 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-usrbin@FreeBSD.ORG, msmith@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/minigzip - Imported sources Message-ID: <199712131102.VAA02541@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:46:47 %2B1100." <199712131046.VAA30601@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Log Message: > > This framework builds the 'minigzip' sample program supplied with > > libz. It is a non-GPL-polluted minimal implementation of the 'gzip' > > command, yielding a 12k executable (vs ~100k for gzip). > > That's because it is linked shared. When both are linked static under > 2.2.5, gzip is 88K (for the installed file size) and minigzip is 72K. > When both are linked shared, gzip is 52K and minigzip is 12K. I > guess minigzip is only worth putting in crunched binaries if you've > already bloated them by using libz. Very good; give the man a bannana. Gzip linked (shared) under 3.0 is actually about 100k, as noted in the log message. Note also that if you are in a space-restricted environment but already have libz present (think 'ppp router floppy') you win again. I felt the minor build/space bloat (a few tens of k and a few seconds) was a reasonable tradeoff. Saving 80+k on a potential install floppy isn't a bad win either. Then, if you are worried about the GPL, it's a win from a different direction. But we've covered this already. mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712131102.VAA02541>