Re: Hamm Bug Stamp-Out List for July 18

[peloy@ven.ra.rockwell.com]

Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:

> OK, here's another thought.  What about just not stripping it?  Here's
> the difference:
> 
>   $ ls -l emacs-20.2*
>   -rwxr-x---   1 rlb      rlb       4679629 Jul 14 23:06 emacs-20.2
>   -rwxr-x---   1 rlb      rlb       2613108 Jul 14 23:07 emacs-20.2.stripped
> 
> It's not that huge a difference, and (if I now understand the issues
> correctly) won't really have much affect at runtime on a Linux system.
> 
> I think the only loss would be the hard drive space, and though it's
> not optimal, given the size of the rest of emacs 20, it may not be a
> show-stopper.
> 
> Of course, in the future whenever I build a new package, I'll see if
> stripping works.
> 
> Thoughts?

Does this problem affect all binaries? I mean, do I need to do
something about the stripped binaries in my packages? They don't
crash, AFAIK, but I just want to be sure and understand the problem.

peloy.-

-- 

Eloy A. Paris
Information Technology Department
Rockwell Automation Venezuela
Telephone: +58-2-9432311 Fax: +58-2-9431645


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org