Re: [GENERAL] RPM RH9.0 conflict with unixODBC
Hi, Something is certainly unusual here. Sander, can you rebuild the RH9 set and see why it is so large? For some reason, I missed how many places were in there, and missed the fact that there were multiple megabytes difference. Debugging symbols or no, this is big. The difference in size is 100% related to the stripped/unstripped binaries. These are the RH9 files in /usr/bin as they are in the RPM: -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 208173 Nov 23 01:40 clusterdb -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 208816 Nov 23 01:40 createdb -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 258577 Nov 23 01:40 createlang -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 208161 Nov 23 01:40 createuser -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 205248 Nov 23 01:40 dropdb -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 257890 Nov 23 01:40 droplang -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 205322 Nov 23 01:40 dropuser -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 739671 Nov 23 01:40 pg_dump -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 176362 Nov 23 01:40 pg_dumpall -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 32745 Nov 23 01:41 pg_encoding -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 36674 Nov 23 01:40 pg_id -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 539901 Nov 23 01:40 pg_restore -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 908106 Nov 23 01:40 psql -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 143996 Nov 23 01:40 vacuumdb And after stripping them: -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 22936 Nov 26 01:15 clusterdb -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 22944 Nov 26 01:15 createdb -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 28160 Nov 26 01:15 createlang -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 23000 Nov 26 01:15 createuser -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 20772 Nov 26 01:15 dropdb -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 27564 Nov 26 01:15 droplang -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 20836 Nov 26 01:15 dropuser -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 160776 Nov 26 01:15 pg_dump -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 28824 Nov 26 01:15 pg_dumpall -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 4464 Nov 26 01:15 pg_encoding -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 4592 Nov 26 01:15 pg_id -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 77120 Nov 26 01:15 pg_restore -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 152344 Nov 26 01:15 psql -rwxr-xr-x1 planeet sander 13012 Nov 26 01:15 vacuumdb This makes the difference between 4.1M (before) and 644K (after). I just noticed that I disabled the debug-package that RH9 builds by default. That very probably causes this difference. I will rebuild the RPMs with the debug-package enabled to see what happens. Sander. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] RPM RH9.0 conflict with unixODBC
Hi, It turns out that preventing RH9 from building the debuginfo package also prevented it from stripping the binaries. This was what caused the big difference in filesize. I have rebuilt the RPMs for RH9 and put them on http://opensource.nederland.net/. I had to make a small modification to the specfile (again) because it seems that macro's work differently for each RPM / RedHat version. There have been no other changes to the sources or specfile, so the end-result is the same. Sorry for the inconvenience I caused by disabling the debuginfo package! Sander. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] RPM RH9.0 conflict with unixODBC
Sander Steffann wrote: Hi, It turns out that preventing RH9 from building the debuginfo package also prevented it from stripping the binaries. This was what caused the big difference in filesize. I have rebuilt the RPMs for RH9 and put them on http://opensource.nederland.net/. I had to make a small modification to the specfile (again) because it seems that macro's work differently for each RPM / RedHat version. There have been no other changes to the sources or specfile, so the end-result is the same. Sorry for the inconvenience I caused by disabling the debuginfo package! Sander. Is this also related to the fact that gdb on libraries of RH9.0 don't complain about the debugging info ? Regards Gaetano Mendola ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] RPM RH9.0 conflict with unixODBC
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 07:56 pm, Sander Steffann wrote: It turns out that preventing RH9 from building the debuginfo package also prevented it from stripping the binaries. Ah, ok. This was what caused the big difference in filesize. I have rebuilt the RPMs for RH9 and put them on http://opensource.nederland.net/. I had to make a small modification to the specfile (again) because it seems that macro's work differently for each RPM / RedHat version. There have been no other changes to the sources or specfile, so the end-result is the same. Ooo... yet more macro differences. Saturday I'll need to put some time into understanding how to make a singular set... Sorry for the inconvenience I caused by disabling the debuginfo package! Sander. Not a big problem. I'll pull down the new packages tomorrow afternoon; I was going to be off, but will have to come in for a couple of hours. So I'll transfer them across then. Many thanks! -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] RPM RH9.0 conflict with unixODBC
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 07:22 pm, Gaetano Mendola wrote: Sander Steffann wrote: Sorry for the inconvenience I caused by disabling the debuginfo package! Sander. Is this also related to the fact that gdb on libraries of RH9.0 don't complain about the debugging info ? I would think so. But with Sander confirming this by file sizes, we know pretty much for certain. Debugging info really jacks up the file size. It didn't use to be quite that big of a difference, back when I built the beta packages (of which we didn't have any this cycle) with debug info turned on, and unstripped. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
