large binary, why not strip ?
Paul B. Mahol
onemda at gmail.com
Tue Nov 18 06:45:38 PST 2008
On 11/17/08, Masoom Shaikh <masoom.shaikh at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Kris Kennaway <kris at 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
>> 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
>> In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
>> -- Charles Forsythe <forsythe at alum.mit.edu>
> Before sending mail I manually stripped * in /usr/local/bin
And what about /usr/local/lib/** ?
> 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...
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-questions