On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 05:30:18 -0800, Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [ -x install-upx ] && install-upx /usr/bin/foo /usr/bin/bar
> >
> > to her postinst or
>
> fine
>
> > dh_upx
> >
> > to her rules.
>
> NO! this would absolutly suck. that leaves the admin in the position
> to
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 09:14:41AM -0400, Itai Zukerman wrote:
>
> It seems to me that each maintainer should make the decision of
> whether she wants UPX to apply to any of her binaries. And the
> easiest way to do that, IMO, is to have her add
>
> [ -x install-upx ] && install-upx /usr/bin/f
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:14:36PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:00:13AM -0400, Itai Zukerman wrote:
> >> you want. The postinst code would call the compression routines,
> >> which might not do anything, depending on how the com
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:14:36 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) wrote:
> >> you want. The postinst code would call the compression routines,
> >> which might not do anything, depending on how the compressing package
> >> was configured (i.e., it wouldn't call the compressing code directly,
>
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:00:13AM -0400, Itai Zukerman wrote:
>> you want. The postinst code would call the compression routines,
>> which might not do anything, depending on how the compressing package
>> was configured (i.e., it wouldn't call the compres
> "Aaron" == Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Aaron> I would hope that they have the same permissions as the
Aaron> originals. And I don't want to imagine what might happen with
Aaron> a suid excecutable...
The unstable version of UPX (1.11) doesn't use the tempfile approach
anymo
Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:52:55PM -0700 wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:39:07PM -0700, David Whedon wrote:
> > Recent versions of upx can compress a linux bzImage (I've seen 13% shaved
> > off
> > a bzImage). debian-installer may use it to squeeze more onto the single
> > floppy (kernel + ini
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:35:12AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Incidentally, I assume the temporarily decompressed executables created
> by UPX are mode 700?
I would hope that they have the same permissions as the originals. And
I don't want to imagine what might happen with a suid excecutable...
Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Since UPX only runs when a program is loaded, and only takes a few seconds
>to do its thing, I see no reason why weaker (eg, 486) machines couldn't
>handle it. Even on old 386 machines, the slowdown shouldn't be much of a
>headache, unless what's being
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:39:07PM -0700, David Whedon wrote:
> Recent versions of upx can compress a linux bzImage (I've seen 13% shaved off
> a bzImage). debian-installer may use it to squeeze more onto the single
> floppy (kernel + initrd with modules).
Isn't that slightly redundant? A bzIma
Recent versions of upx can compress a linux bzImage (I've seen 13% shaved off
a bzImage). debian-installer may use it to squeeze more onto the single
floppy (kernel + initrd with modules).
David
Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 06:25:10PM -0700 wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 11:50:44AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 11:41:56AM -0700, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:40:15 -0700 "John H. Robinson, IV" wrote:
> >
> > > however, on something like boot-floppies, this might be a
> > > goddess-send.
>
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 06:02:30 -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:00:13AM -0400, Itai Zukerman wrote:
> > If not, I suggest a debhelper command to add the necessary code to
> > the postinst. Packages that use this should, of course, depend on the
> > binary-compressing package,
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:00:13AM -0400, Itai Zukerman wrote:
>
> If not, I suggest a debhelper command to add the necessary code to
> the postinst. Packages that use this should, of course, depend on the
> binary-compressing package, which would provide the one-time question
why should they de
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 00:57:54 +0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 22 April 2001 00:45, Itai Zukerman wrote:
> > Why not compress the binaries in the postinst, maybe after asking the
> > admin for permission?
>
> Well, if I had to answer "no" to compression for binary in every new package
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 07:42:00PM -0300, Carlos Laviola wrote:
> There is: just upx -d it. (you can even run md5sum before and after
> compression/decompression to find out for yourself that the decompressed file
> is the same as before.)
Will upx -d work on a binary that was compressed with an o
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 12:20:21PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> What is upx good for?
> For all applications that are not used in critical environment, i.e.
> without enough free disc space, or when they are started to often, so
> the decompression time may be too long.
> For example, I will compre
17 matches
Mail list logo
