On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:03:22 +0200 (CEST) Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote: > On Sun, 23 Apr 2017, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >>> [ https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10357 ] >> Yes, but in my opinion we should stop relying on upstream build systems >> to get stripping right and let bsd.port.mk strip ELF files after staging. >> It's less work for maintainers. Then instead of stripping, bsd.port.mk >> could also extract debug symbols into separate files and put them into a >> debug subpackage. > > Yes, that sounds a lot more reliable and maintainable (and overall > less work compared to patching hundreds of ports). > > Until something like this is in place, should we ignore those > complaints from the QA framework or patch individual ports?
That's not my decision to make. It's not that important for gcc I think. The only reason to strip files is to make them a bit smaller and gcc is not going to be installed on space constrained systems where this matters. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
