Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: RFP: UPX (Was Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX)
From:	Roger <roger_maillist AT alltel DOT net>
To:	egor duda <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<2070817630.20020315164227@logos-m.ru>
References:
	<FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA760014BC8 AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
	<2070817630 DOT 20020315164227 AT logos-m DOT ru>
X-Mailer:	Evolution/1.0.2-4mdk
Date:	15 Mar 2002 10:28:56 -0500
Message-Id:	<1016206164.11719.5.camel@localhost2.localdomain>
Mime-Version:	1.0

--=-kZ8sXvzrf0oDpTtkyBB0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 2002-03-15 at 08:42, egor duda wrote:
> Hi!
>=20
> Friday, 15 March, 2002 Robert Collins robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au wrot=
e:
>=20
> RC> I vote for including UPX... and Lapo makes two. Do we need a third? A=
nd
> RC> are there any objections?
>=20
> Does anybody ever tried to measure if upx impose any performance
> penalties? If i understand things correctly, upx compress executable
> file and attach a small "decompressor" stub to it. Then, when
> executable starts, this stub decompresses original executable image.
> This will totally defeat the features that most modern OSes have,
> mapping pages from executable and loading them on demand, sharing
> common read-only pages between different instances of one application,
> etc. I really don't understand what's the point in saving disk storage
> worth several cents (1byte =3D=3D $1e-7), while increasing memory
> footprint and reducing speed. Hey, just read upx docs, they contain
> all these points already.
>=20
> Not that i'm against inclusion of upx to cygwin distro -- it's a
> normal package like many others after all, but i really don't
> understand why somebody would want to use such a program.
>=20
> Egor.            mailto:deo AT logos-m DOT ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19
>=20

i tend to agree. keep it basic. keep it simple.  you could probabely
spend a life-time just trying to shrink size, etc.

one might see a diff if all files were compressed with upx, but as egor
mentioned, this would probabely seriously hinder system performance.

not too metion, the binary versions are still i386 only.  i already see
a big difference just recompiling for i686 platform, but how many users
really re-compile cygwin for usage?
--=20
Roger
-----
Verify my pgp/gnupg signature on my HomePage:
http://www.alltel.net/~rogerx/about/index.html
l

--=-kZ8sXvzrf0oDpTtkyBB0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEABECAAYFAjySEzgACgkQZA/JYxAFHWH9AwCdHhIAAXY2dsAoyQQHQX340W8D
FG0An26RqfxPZ50Xly9E6s5F13i5tgCR
=0TeN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-kZ8sXvzrf0oDpTtkyBB0--

- Raw text -