[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: compiling for non-factory

To: luci-discuss@luci.org
Subject: Re: compiling for non-factory
From: Jeff Licquia <jeff@luci.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 18:12:04 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20000428230520.A19318@math.fu-berlin.de>; from blunier@ocslink.com on Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 11:05:20PM -0500
Organization: Linux Users of Central Illinois
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10004281246410.402-100000@cloud233.cloudmaster.com> <200004282013.PAA01810@osiris.silug.org> <20000428230520.A19318@math.fu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: luci-discuss@luci.org
Sender: owner-luci-discuss@luci.org
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i


On Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 11:05:20PM -0500, Mark Blunier wrote:
> 
> Previousl Steven Pritchard (steve@silug.org):
> 
> >     * Strip everything that looks like an executable or library.
> 
> Is there a (good) reason why the distributions don't have this done
> already?  Does it have drawbacks.

I believe that all Debian packages must contain stripped binaries by
policy, although exceptions are possible.

--
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@luci.org with
"unsubscribe luci-discuss" in the body.

References:
- Re: compiling for non-factory
  - From: Cloudmaster <sauer@cloudmaster.com>
- Re: compiling for non-factory
  - From: Steven Pritchard <steve@silug.org>
- Re: compiling for non-factory
  - From: Mark Blunier <blunier@ocslink.com>

Prev by Date: Re: malloc
Next by Date: scsi emulation (yes, again)
Prev by thread: Re: compiling for non-factory
Next by thread: malloc
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread