Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>