Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:40:34 +0000 From: "Masoom Shaikh" <masoom.shaikh@gmail.com> To: "Kris Kennaway" <kris@freebsd.org> Cc: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: large binary, why not strip ? Message-ID: <b10011eb0811171040y536d5e18y171ca9aed686f9bf@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20081117172100.GB43367@hub.freebsd.org> References: <b10011eb0811160042w158656bld3b91a2bf7cfdd3f@mail.gmail.com> <20081116125622.E24752@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081117172100.GB43367@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:56:31PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar 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 ? > > > > me too > > > > > >do I miss anything ? > > > > no. > > I am confused why both of you are seeing "most" of the programs > installed this way. Can you confirm that this is true and not just an > exaggeration? > > As Matthew says, there are some ports that fail to strip their > binaries because of how they install files (using cp etc). These are > bugs that should be reported to their maintainers on a case by case > basis. > > Kris > > -- > In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. > -- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu> > Before sending mail I manually stripped * in /usr/local/bin else I cud send u the o/p of `ls -lhS` yes, "most" is bit exaggerated...I perhaps was talking about first five binaries listed in increasing order of size...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b10011eb0811171040y536d5e18y171ca9aed686f9bf>