Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/03/15/11:52:21

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: <>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:52:01 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX
Message-ID: <>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA760014BC6 AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au> <3C91ED8C DOT 45B068E0 AT lapo DOT it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/

On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:48:13PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
>> Uhmm, UPX should be part of the distribution first, as a maintained
>> pacakge, before folk start packing distributed binaries with it. Do we
>> have a volunteer to maintain UPX?
>UPX is quite cross-platform: you can use win32 version to package lonux
>a.out such as linux verison to package win32 PE.
>Moreover an UPX-compressed EXE is completely self-sufficient from UPX
>itself, has no memory overhead and decompresses very very fast (10Mb/sec
>on the author's Pentium133 as says).
>But if a cygwin native version is needed nonetheless I could volunteer to
>package it.

I think this is a useful addition to the cygwin packages but I don't see
why it should be a requirement that it be available as a package before
people start using it.

It sounds from your description like I'll be able to run this on linux,
where I make all of my packages.  Is that right?  That's the only way
this will be useful for me.


- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019