Pierre Labastie wrote: > Le 21/04/2014 19:28, Bruce Dubbs a écrit : >> Pierre Labastie wrote: >>> Le 21/04/2014 10:36, Pierre Labastie a écrit : >>>> Le 20/04/2014 18:08, Bruce Dubbs a écrit : >>>>> bdu...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Missing OpenJDK-1.7.0.55-i686-bin.tar.xz >>>>>> Missing OpenJDK-1.7.0.55-x86_64-bin.tar.xz >>>>> >>>>> These tarballs are really large. Have the binaries in them been stripped? >>>>> >>> Stripping the shared libraries with --strip-debug, the executables with >>> --strip-unneeded, removing src.zip and man, demo, sample directories, >>> reduces >>> the size of the tarball by roughly a factor of three (slightly less). >>> >>> I'll test that I can rebuild OpenJDK/Icedtea with those reduced binaries >>> before uploading them. > > Test OK > >>> >>> OTOH, if somebody does not want to build OpenJDK/Icedtea, and wants to use >>> the >>> binary as is, it may be better to keep demo, man, and sample (adds 7MB or >>> so). >>> I do not know if src.zip is useful: It adds 40-45MB. Anybody knows what it >>> is >>> useful for? >> >> I have not looked at src.zip, but I think the man, demo, and sample >> directories should remain for exactly the reason you say -- for >> instance, some may only want java for something like fop and may not >> want to build java. > > Googling around, I found that src.zip is needed if you want to use a debugger, > in order to be able to see the source code. If we suppress the debug symbol in > shared libraries, debugging is impossible anyway. > > Actually, if we want the OpenJDK binaries to be usable for development, we > should not strip, nor suppress anything. If we just want a JDK for building, > we can strip executable and libraries, suppress src.zip, demo and sample, > keeping man for documenting the executables.
OK, thanks for checking. Let's leave it alone. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
