large binary, why not strip ?

[Kris Kennaway]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 06:40:34PM +0000, Masoom Shaikh wrote:
> 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...

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.

Kris

--
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
    -- Charles Forsythe <forsythe at alum.mit.edu>