I see in an excerpt of 'man ld' for 10.5 that ld
now has an option '-dead_strip_dylibs'.
I would strongly favour adding this as a default
LDFLAG (conditional to 10.5).
It does have the potential, when used systematically,
to substantially reduce our deps ...
JF Mertens
On Nov 11, 2007, at 8:12 PM, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
I see in an excerpt of 'man ld' for 10.5 that ld
now has an option '-dead_strip_dylibs'.
I would strongly favour adding this as a default
LDFLAG (conditional to 10.5).
It does have the potential, when used systematically,
to
On 12 Nov 2007, at 04:50, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
On 12 Nov 2007, at 04:27, Daniel Johnson wrote:
On Nov 11, 2007, at 8:12 PM, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
I see in an excerpt of 'man ld' for 10.5 that ld
now has an option '-dead_strip_dylibs'.
I would strongly favour adding this
Jean-François Mertens wrote:
On 12 Nov 2007, at 04:50, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
this _ i.e., use this, so it would require pkg maintainers to edit
correctly
their .la files _ lost dream ... :)
Well, it would be a pain, assuming nobody edited their .la files, but
many used the dead
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 10:13:13PM -0600, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Jean-Fran?ois Mertens wrote:
On 12 Nov 2007, at 04:50, Jean-Fran?ois Mertens wrote:
this _ i.e., use this, so it would require pkg maintainers to edit
correctly
their .la files _ lost dream ... :)
Well, it would be
On 12 Nov 2007, at 05:27, Daniel Macks wrote:
Does stripping down a package's Depends even help on the binary side
either?
It does in the sense of giving (potentially) a smaller footprint to the
lib or executable
The Depends' Depends would still be there, so the
indirectly-linked libraries
