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 > -- > =^..^= > >
