Re: [fU] approaching impact

[stephan b. <st...@ei...>]

On Friday 05 September 2003 07:55, Rusty Ballinger wrote:
> > Well, what I did instead was fiddle with getting an RPM target
> > (which works now...
>
> One thing which doesn't seem to work is whatever's supposed to strip
> the binaries during the packaging process.  libfunUtil.so goes from
> like 3.5MB to 300K if you strip it after installing the RPM package.
>

It used to work and i removed it because i once tried to link to 
libfunutil.a and it was devoid of symbols. i suspect, though i haven't 
bothered to try to prove it, that it's okay to strip a .so without 
suffering this side-effect.

In fact, in the toc tree i've changed the way libs are handled, partly 
because of this point. It is now as follows:

INSTALL_LIBS go to $prefix/lib and are not stripped
INSTALL_LIBEXECS also go to prefix/lib (instead of prefix/libexec, for 
reasons explained in install.make), but are mode 0755.

(note, though, that fun's tree isn't updated to that state yet.)

-- 
----- stephan
st...@ei... - http://www.einsurance.de
"...control is a degree of inhibition, and a system which is perfectly
inhibited is completely frozen." -- Alan W. Watts