From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 17 17:21:00 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 758) id 1B4BB1065673; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:21:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:21:00 +0000 From: Kris Kennaway To: Wojciech Puchar Message-ID: <20081117172100.GB43367@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20081116125622.E24752@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081116125622.E24752@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: Masoom Shaikh , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: large binary, why not strip ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:21:00 -0000 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 exaggeration? 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 basis. Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe