X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From: rugxulo AT gmail DOT com
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of Binutils 2.17 uploaded
Date: 27 Mar 2007 12:46:31 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <1175024791.411147.93080@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
References: <OF5058E0D6 DOT 7A3783EB-ON872572AB DOT 00593202-872572AB DOT 00598540 AT seagate DOT com>
   <4609490f$0$20293$9b4e6d93 AT newsspool3 DOT arcor-online DOT net>
   <200703271656 DOT l2RGu5FN012537 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.115.246
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1175024793 30747 127.0.0.1 (27 Mar 2007 19:46:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:46:33 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <200703271656.l2RGu5FN012537@envy.delorie.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.10 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
Injection-Info: y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246;
   posting-account=qvj7NA0AAABallzf-E3FtUCXEd65I-J8
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Mar 27, 11:56 am, DJ Delorie <d DOT  DOT  DOT  AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> > > I've been considering that - I can certainly do that, I didn't know
>
> > Don't do it, because it could introduce additional problems. If someone
> > wants to compress, he/she is free to do so.
>
> We've been doing it for all the other zips.  Strip, then compress.

If you're going to use UPX, I suggest using the latest "unstable" beta
2.93 (though 2.03 "stable" is good too, but 2.93 is better w/ a few
bug fixes, LZMA support, etc. and is "stable enough", IMO):  "upx --
ultra-brute *.exe" (assuming you have a fast machine, otherwise "--
best" is MUCH faster and almost as good compression).

However, doesn't UPXing binaries (even DOS ones) prevent shared .EXE
loading or whatever under Windows? (Doesn't it waste more memory if
running multiple instances of a certain tool?)

BTW, the .ZIP itself can be "Deflate"d a reasonable bit better than
normal ZIP tools if you use AdvanceComp's "advzip -z4 bnu217b.zip"
etc.

http://advancemame.sourceforge.net/comp-readme.html

P.S. I think UPX automatically strips the binaries, so no need to do
that if you're using it. But, if you do use strip.exe, I'd guess you
need to use the new one (2.17) on all the 2.17 binaries.