Re: RFP: UPX (Was Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX)
Hallo Earnie, Am 2002-03-15 um 14:28 schriebst du: Robert Collins wrote: -Original Message- From: Lapo Luchini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:48 PM But if a cygwin native version is needed nonetheless I could volunteer to package it. IMO we should have a fully self-hosted distribution. At the moment, with the _single_ exception of postgresql, every package here can be rebuilt from source, to a version equivalent to what the package maintainer posted, on a cygwin system, with the tools that the distribution has. So yes, UPX should be a package before it's used to make packages. I vote for including UPX... and Lapo makes two. Do we need a third? And are there any objections? Does UPX come with an API library that you can just use in setup? UCL is the library which is needed to build UPX. UCL: http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/ucl/ UPX: http://upx.sourceforge.net/ Gerrit -- =^..^=
Re: RFP: UPX (Was Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX)
Hallo Christopher, Am 2002-03-15 um 17:55 schriebst du: Not that i'm against inclusion of upx to cygwin distro -- it's a normal package like many others after all, but i really don't understand why somebody would want to use such a program. Excellent points. This is, IMO, an argument against using upx for all (any?) cygwin binaries. Some people have only small systems with small HDD's and they want to save space. A harddisk with 20 GB for which I pay $100 is really cheap, but a binary compressor which costs nothing is cheaper. (And the most people out there have no NT systems and no builtin compression). You even don't need UCL to be installed to use the compressed binaries. There is no significant loss of performance, though I saw that compressing DLL's works not well, so it should be used only for compressing .exe files. So why not include UCL/UPX in the distro? Nobody is forced to use it! We should not precompress delivered binaries (besides setup.exe maybe?). It will not reduce the size of the packages very much. Gerrit -- =^..^=
Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX
Hallo Christopher, Am 2002-03-15 um 17:52 schriebst du: I think this is a useful addition to the cygwin packages but I don't see why it should be a requirement that it be available as a package before people start using it. So we can also use NASM to build UCL/UPX which is needed here AFAIR? Gerrit -- =^..^=
Re: RFP: UPX (Was Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX)
We should not precompress delivered binaries (besides setup.exe maybe?). It will not reduce the size of the packages very much. We could maybe include in the UPX file also two shell scripts: compress everything and decompress everything, just to ease things to users. -- Lapo 'Raist' Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)
Re: RFP: UPX (Was Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX)
Hallo Lapo, Am 2002-03-16 um 12:16 schriebst du: We should not precompress delivered binaries (besides setup.exe maybe?). It will not reduce the size of the packages very much. We could maybe include in the UPX file also two shell scripts: compress everything and decompress everything, just to ease things to users. It is pretty easy to type in: `upx /bin/*.exe`;) Give it a try, pack it up and offer it for inclusion (UCL too). Gerrit -- =^..^=
RE: RFP: UPX (Was Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX)
Hi! I have used UPX a lot recently, and have found it very useful; however, I would not recommend compressing all binaries with it. Instead, to get a good compromise between size and speed, why not just compress those files that are the least used, and/or largest. For example, on my system, the largest files are (not including dlls since someone posted that they do not compress well): gs.exe* gdb.exe* lynx.exe* cvs.exe* postgres.exe* openssl.exe* vim.exe* dvipdfm.exe* squid.exe* links.exe* pdfetex.exe* mutt.exe* pdftex.exe* ld.exe* objdump.exe* as.exe* objcopy.exe* strip.exe* bash.exe* expect.exe* omfonts.exe* gprof.exe* irc-20010101.exe* Of these, I would not compress ld, as, and possibly cvs since I don't want to incur a performance hit, but the rest will considerably reduce the size with a minimal loss of speed :). Stephano Mariani PS: The UPX stubs are *very* fast anyway :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gerrit P. Haase Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2002 2:38 PM To: Lapo Luchini Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RFP: UPX (Was Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX) Hallo Lapo, Am 2002-03-16 um 12:16 schriebst du: We should not precompress delivered binaries (besides setup.exe maybe?). It will not reduce the size of the packages very much. We could maybe include in the UPX file also two shell scripts: compress everything and decompress everything, just to ease things to users. It is pretty easy to type in: `upx /bin/*.exe`;) Give it a try, pack it up and offer it for inclusion (UCL too). Gerrit -- =^..^=
Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX
No sideeffects;) I'm using it since a year now. Fetch my binary: http://familiehaase.de/cywgin/compression/upx/ rsync.exe 2.5.4-1 shrinks from 167936 down to 72704, and .bz2 archive too shrinks from 95901 down to 94571 (I didn't expect this one)... anyone has objections if I pack future rsync version with UPX, or it's green? -- Lapo 'Raist' Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)
RFP: UPX (Was Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX)
-Original Message- From: Lapo Luchini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:48 PM But if a cygwin native version is needed nonetheless I could volunteer to package it. IMO we should have a fully self-hosted distribution. At the moment, with the _single_ exception of postgresql, every package here can be rebuilt from source, to a version equivalent to what the package maintainer posted, on a cygwin system, with the tools that the distribution has. So yes, UPX should be a package before it's used to make packages. I vote for including UPX... and Lapo makes two. Do we need a third? And are there any objections? Rob
Re: RFP: UPX (Was Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX)
Robert Collins wrote: -Original Message- From: Lapo Luchini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:48 PM But if a cygwin native version is needed nonetheless I could volunteer to package it. IMO we should have a fully self-hosted distribution. At the moment, with the _single_ exception of postgresql, every package here can be rebuilt from source, to a version equivalent to what the package maintainer posted, on a cygwin system, with the tools that the distribution has. So yes, UPX should be a package before it's used to make packages. I vote for including UPX... and Lapo makes two. Do we need a third? And are there any objections? Does UPX come with an API library that you can just use in setup? Earnie. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: RFP: UPX (Was Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX)
-Original Message- From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 12:28 AM Does UPX come with an API library that you can just use in setup? That's a nice idea, and on a related note I'm considering compressing setup.exe with UPX once it's a package. If UPX doesn't have a good API, I'm sure we can wrap it if need be. Rob
RE: RFP: UPX (Was Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX)
-Original Message- From: egor duda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 12:42 AM To: Robert Collins Not that i'm against inclusion of upx to cygwin distro -- it's a normal package like many others after all, but i really don't understand why somebody would want to use such a program. Very good points. There are some cases where it is definitely useful. I'd certainly do some performance testing before using on often called software - ie ash. But for something like setup.exe itself, download time reductions would be well worth a couple of extra page faults at runtime. As for mapping the image against the disk image or the pagefile, I think it's back to case by case testing. Certainly I can imagine that with a compressed exe on a NTFS partition, or a FAT16 compressed volume, that making the least random access hits back against the .exe is more efficient. Rob
Re: RFP: UPX (Was Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX)
On Fri, 2002-03-15 at 08:42, egor duda wrote: Hi! Friday, 15 March, 2002 Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RC I vote for including UPX... and Lapo makes two. Do we need a third? And RC are there any objections? Does anybody ever tried to measure if upx impose any performance penalties? If i understand things correctly, upx compress executable file and attach a small decompressor stub to it. Then, when executable starts, this stub decompresses original executable image. This will totally defeat the features that most modern OSes have, mapping pages from executable and loading them on demand, sharing common read-only pages between different instances of one application, etc. I really don't understand what's the point in saving disk storage worth several cents (1byte == $1e-7), while increasing memory footprint and reducing speed. Hey, just read upx docs, they contain all these points already. Not that i'm against inclusion of upx to cygwin distro -- it's a normal package like many others after all, but i really don't understand why somebody would want to use such a program. Egor.mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19 i tend to agree. keep it basic. keep it simple. you could probabely spend a life-time just trying to shrink size, etc. one might see a diff if all files were compressed with upx, but as egor mentioned, this would probabely seriously hinder system performance. not too metion, the binary versions are still i386 only. i already see a big difference just recompiling for i686 platform, but how many users really re-compile cygwin for usage? -- Roger - Verify my pgp/gnupg signature on my HomePage: http://www.alltel.net/~rogerx/about/index.html l signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:48:13PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote: Uhmm, UPX should be part of the distribution first, as a maintained pacakge, before folk start packing distributed binaries with it. Do we have a volunteer to maintain UPX? UPX is quite cross-platform: you can use win32 version to package lonux a.out such as linux verison to package win32 PE. Moreover an UPX-compressed EXE is completely self-sufficient from UPX itself, has no memory overhead and decompresses very very fast (10Mb/sec on the author's Pentium133 as upx.sourceforge.net says). But if a cygwin native version is needed nonetheless I could volunteer to package it. I think this is a useful addition to the cygwin packages but I don't see why it should be a requirement that it be available as a package before people start using it. It sounds from your description like I'll be able to run this on linux, where I make all of my packages. Is that right? That's the only way this will be useful for me. cgf
Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX
NTFS already does on the fly compression. No other utility is needed. Earnie. Gerrit P. Haase wrote: Lapo, Mittwoch, 13. März 2002 22:36:35, du schriebst: What about reducing distributed exes size using UPX? Has it any side-kicks on cygwni binaries? Of course bz2 archives wouldn't change but installed size could. No sideeffects;) I'm using it since a year now. Fetch my binary: http://familiehaase.de/cywgin/compression/upx/ Gerrit -- =^..^= _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX
Earnie, Donnerstag, 14. März 2002 15:29:35, du schriebst: NTFS already does on the fly compression. No other utility is needed. What about FAT drives? UPX compresses binaries about 50%! How much does NTFS on the fly compression handles? What about reducing distributed exes size using UPX? Has it any side-kicks on cygwni binaries? Of course bz2 archives wouldn't change but installed size could. No sideeffects;) I'm using it since a year now. Fetch my binary: http://familiehaase.de/cywgin/compression/upx/ -- $ make signature make: *** No rule to make target `signature'. Stop. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
reducing binary distribution size with UPX
What about reducing distributed exes size using UPX? Has it any side-kicks on cygwni binaries? Of course bz2 archives wouldn't change but installed size could. Just an idea (and I found nothing in the archives regarding it 0=) ). -- Lapo 'Raist' Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)
Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX
Lapo, Mittwoch, 13. März 2002 22:36:35, du schriebst: What about reducing distributed exes size using UPX? Has it any side-kicks on cygwni binaries? Of course bz2 archives wouldn't change but installed size could. No sideeffects;) I'm using it since a year now. Fetch my binary: http://familiehaase.de/cywgin/compression/upx/ Gerrit -- =^..^=
