Re: why strip?
On Mar 4, James LewisMoss wrote
> I'm wondering why the requirement to strip binaries/libraries?
The reason is the increased size of binaries and libraries. Depending
on the level of debugging used (-gn), the increase can 5 times or more
over unstripped versions.
> it is a rarity that anyone would link something statically. Is there
> any reason not to distribute static libs with debugging information
> intact? (would make debugging things easier. Under the current
> situation if I need to debug a program based on some library in my
> system I HAVE to go out and compile the source for myself. (Unless of
> course there is a separate debugging package for the lib which in most
> cases there is not.) Specifying debugging for static libs would solve
> that problem. Not stripping shared libs would make debugging binaries
> linked with them much easier.
The last time this came up, the consensus was to strip shared
libraries because of the size reason. Static libraries are another
matter though. Personally, I'm not opposed to having unstripped,
static libraries. If we did this though, we might want to move all
static libraries to debug packages because of the size reason.
David Engel ODS Networks
email@example.com 1001 E. Arapaho Road
(972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081