-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 06:40:34PM +0000, Masoom Shaikh wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 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 ?
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
>>> -- Charles Forsythe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Before sending mail I manually stripped * in /usr/local/bin
>> else I cud send u the o/p of `ls -lhS`
>> yes, "most" is bit exaggerated...I perhaps was talking about first five
>> binaries listed in increasing order of size...
> Yeah the largest binaries are likely to be unstripped. You can use
> pkg_which (part of portupgrade) to work out which ports they came
> from, then send the mainainer a polite email and/or PR request that
> they be installed stripped.
> 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.
I was going to do some work on this except
$file *|grep "not stripped"
GNU Key fingerptrint: 2E13 BC16 5F54 0FBD 62ED 42B6 B65F 24AB E9C2 CCD1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"