Attached is the overall filesize results from stripping. Sorry about the sloppy formatting, I used tabs by mistake. It'll look best in a terminal. I split up the comparison of stripping results between binaries (bin,sbin,usr/bin,usr/sbin) and libraries (lib,usr/lib). For both I provided unstripped and --strip-debug sizes. I also performed --strip-all on the binaries, and --strip-unneeded on the libraries.
In summary of the filesizes, the binaries saw a much greater gain in space when compared to the libraries. The difference between removing the debugging symbols and the more intensive strip were both relatively small (~5% on the binaries, and not even 1% on the libraries). So there doesn't seem to be a lot of merit to going further than removing debugging symbols. My conclusion: You have to be pretty desperate for saving space to need to worry about stripping beyond --strip-debug. Since I already went this far anyway, I decided to still set up a test system with the more intensive strip set (--strip-all on binaries, --strip-unneeded on libaries). Everything seemed to be running fine, so I decided to try some static compilation. Unfortunately, the static test programs that I have tried thus far (bash and vim) have both failed on both regular and stripped systems in the same way (runtime errors). I think I accidentally hit a bug in glibc which I'll post about later after more research. Jonathan
du-striptest.log
Description: Binary data
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
