large binary, why not strip ?

[Matthew Seaman]

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.

As others have commented, most shlibs installed from ports aren't stripped.
The same applies to almost any sort of pluggable module (perl, PHP etc.) that
I have been able to investigate.

	Cheers,

	Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.                   7 Priory Courtyard
                                                  Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey     Ramsgate
                                                  Kent, CT11 9PW

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20081126/e55ba4ee/signature.pgp