large binary, why not strip ?

[Masoom Shaikh]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Kris Kennaway <kris at freebsd.org> 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 ?
> >
> > no.
>
> 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
> exaggeration?
>
> 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
> basis.
>
> Kris
>
> --
> In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
>    -- Charles Forsythe <forsythe at alum.mit.edu>
>
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...