From:	"Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Fileutils 4.0 released
Date:	Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:11:11 +0200
Message-ID:	<CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIIEOFCDAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-reply-to:	<9003-Mon04Jun2001213626+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Importance:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> > How about adding a recommendation (to the FAQ, or the KB, or
> > wherever appropriate) that executables be compressed with UPX?
> 
> UPX has its own stub, and I'm not sure how well would it work.  What

Are you sure?  I just did

  C:\> upx foo.exe
    [Compressing... blah]
  C:\> stubify -g bar
  C:\> fc /b foo.exe bar.exe
    Comparing files foo.exe and bar.exe
    FC: foo.exe longer than bar.exe

So my guess is that the stubs are identical; this guess seems
strengthened by the fact that UPX has a --coff option that generates a
COFF files instead of an executable.

- Raw text -