You will get a more noticable size decrease by stripping the binaries
than by the compile flags, Mark addressed this already. The flags you
complain about are not significantly responsible for the presense of
debugging information, the fact that the binaries are unstripped has
more to do with it.
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 05:44:55PM +0200, Oleg Batrashev wrote:
> Thanks for answers, I agree that its convenient to have debug info, but
> sometimes I want to define CXXFLAGS and others myself when running
> configure. For example, currently I need to install linux and many
> programs (with X, kernel sources, ...) on 1 GB space. Gaim's 66 MB do
> matter. :)
> That is what configure --help says and here is text from automake docs
> ----------- from automake docs --------------
> Variables reserved for the user
> Some Makefile variables are reserved by the GNU Coding Standards for the
> use of the "user" - the person building the package. For instance,
> CFLAGS is one such variable.
> Sometimes package developers are tempted to set user variables such as
> CFLAGS because it appears to make their job easier - they don't have to
> introduce a second variable into every target.
> However, the package itself should never set a user variable,
> particularly not to include switches which are required for proper
> compilation of the package. Since these variables are documented as
> being for the package builder, that person rightfully expects to be able
> to override any of these variables at build time.
> To get around this problem, automake introduces an automake-specific
> shadow variable for each user flag variable. (Shadow variables are not
> introduced for variables like CC, where they would make no sense.) The
> shadow variable is named by prepending AM_ to the user variable's name.
> For instance, the shadow variable for YFLAGS is AM_YFLAGS.
> ----------- END from automake docs --------------
> On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 17:07, Torrey McMahon wrote:
> > Mark Doliner wrote:
> > >So your question should really be, "Shouldn't Gaim strip it's binary files
> > >when installing them?" Personally I'd say the answer is no. I feel that
> > >distributions should determine whether they want to strip the binary or not (I
> > >believe Red Hat, Debian and Gentoo all strip their binaries (Gentoo has an
> > >option in the config file for emerge or something, right?)). If someone
> > >compiles Gaim themselves, it seems like a good idea to keep the debugging
> > >info. In my mind the only reason someone would want to compile Gaim
> > >themselves is to do development on it, or on a plugin. In which case
> > >debugging info is useful.
> > >
> > Leaving the symbols in place for the distro can be a good idea. It makes
> > first failure analysis easier to do. If not you have to cobble together
> > a new binary, hope you didn't change something in-between, get them to
> > reproduce, etc.
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
> Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
> LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.
> Gaim-devel mailing list