RE: stripping snapshots

Original Message >From: Dave Korn >Sent: 20 September 2005 11:11 > Original Message >> From: Lapo Luchini >> Sent: 20 September 2005 08:36 > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: >>> Could snapshots be provided this way instead o

RE: stripping snapshots

Original Message >From: Lapo Luchini >Sent: 20 September 2005 08:36 > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: >> Could snapshots be provided this way instead or in addition to with >> unstripped executables? > > But wouldn't that remove any debu

Re: stripping snapshots

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > Could snapshots be provided this way instead or in addition to with > unstripped executables? But wouldn't that remove any debugging info? (which is kinda needed, if a snapshot has got some bugs) - -- L a p o L u c

stripping snapshots

When I try a snapshot, I usually try building things, so I get the cygwin-inst- tarball for the changed libs, but that has unstripped executables in it. Stripping them would give a 60% smaller tarball. Could snapshots be provided this way instead or in addition to with unstripped executables? --