Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:52:01 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX Message-ID: <20020315165200.GB18094@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com References: <3C91ED8C DOT 45B068E0 AT lapo DOT it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C91ED8C.45B068E0@lapo.it> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i 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 upx.sourceforge.net 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. cgf