large binary, why not strip ?
masoom.shaikh at gmail.com
Wed Nov 19 07:27:50 PST 2008
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu at freebsd.org> 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
send the trace to someone who is. Well my only point is choice, I should
choice to install un-stripped bins only if I wish, since for those who have
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
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 |
More information about the freebsd-questions