From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 26 17:01:20 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 6210E1065674 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:01:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from onemda@gmail.com) Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B34C8FC1A for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:01:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from onemda@gmail.com) Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so281467yxb.13 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:01:19 -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 :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=xq26/rihYCO+pmwLzOcS2c7z/lGeTh0kd/hHUhtRM3M=; b=emsOaSPDTiIaJ18EqYHQ46a3+e3lP80pSdc/YfnA3JADioy4ugM9IRsRiCvbcJgxkW SvhHLivSnJYDKTPbG53ubArzFao6hfgI8oE8/RPTb5q2ESzW1v0qWQW81OdZdXxJ6mzA 9vY6Cd5haratGpea6SO/95UcNoP6euc+5mdNk= 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:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=ddwUP6RVdxSPIjGn2VYKXb6GyERr1jJeKRWwcA6NqK5fPgNs3mx9DHmTFIilesUoK7 qcKo1Cey3Wz1301DSxeWiH7mi3KrSE8T4bpdXKj3Qfi/NIRVduAIpN/ezUGapPLjyd1h 7LHu/uR7NBGX/c5HemuVMlEuGUwRkfENKdFvA= Received: by 10.231.12.141 with SMTP id x13mr131474ibx.52.1227718879092; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:01:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.10.65 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:01:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3a142e750811260901j134e9ff9pa334fc50c52fadd2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:01:19 +0100 From: "Paul B. Mahol" To: "Matthew Seaman" In-Reply-To: <492D7E03.3070500@infracaninophile.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20081116125622.E24752@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081117172100.GB43367@hub.freebsd.org> <20081117210649.GE63818@hub.freebsd.org> <49226AFD.6060505@infracaninophile.co.uk> <492D7E03.3070500@infracaninophile.co.uk> 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, 26 Nov 2008 17:01:20 -0000 On 11/26/08, Matthew Seaman wrote: > Matthew Seaman wrote: >> Kris Kennaway wrote: >> >>> Bonus points if you come up with a patch to do this: in most cases it >>> will be a simple matter of changing the port's do-install: target to >>> use INSTALL_* macros instead of cp/bsdtar etc. This would be a good >>> project to get some familiarity with the ports tree. >> >> Would it be worthwhile to add a test and warning that all installed >> binaries >> have not been stripped to the 'security-check' target in bsd.port.mk? >> That's >> not really what that target was intended for (feeping creaturism alert!) >> but >> it's the obvious place to put such a test. >> >> Probably cleaner to create a whole new target, but that's going to >> duplicate >> some code. >> >> Hmmmm... I shall work up some patches, probably over the weekend, so >> there's >> something substantive to talk about. > > Done: ports/129210 > > For the record, I also discovered that, contrary to what I said earlier, > there is apparently one class of binary object that will not work correctly > if stripped: kernel loadable modules. Kernel loadable modules are already stripped (--strip-debug). -- Paul