large binary, why not strip ?
Paul B. Mahol
onemda at gmail.com
Wed Nov 26 09:01:20 PST 2008
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
>> have not been stripped to the 'security-check' target in bsd.port.mk?
>> not really what that target was intended for (feeping creaturism alert!)
>> it's the obvious place to put such a test.
>> Probably cleaner to create a whole new target, but that's going to
>> some code.
>> Hmmmm... I shall work up some patches, probably over the weekend, so
>> 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).
More information about the freebsd-questions