large binary, why not strip ?

[Paul B. Mahol]

On 11/26/08, Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk> 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