From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10212110452.AA21320@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: DJGPP 2.04 status page updates: more to-dos, priorities
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:52:44 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <3DF644DC.D953275C@yahoo.com> from "CBFalconer" at Dec 10, 2002 02:47:41 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Precedence: bulk

> > > 4 Should we compress distributed binaries using UPX?
> > 
> > I'd like to know exactly what breaks this ... If it's some new
> > binutils feature we can live without ...
> 
> Why bother?  The end user can do it.  

Sure, and the end user could check out the source from CVS and
build the entire package themselves, too.  It's something to make
the package smaller, faster and easier to use.

Images load faster due to decreased disk space usage (and better
cache utilization).  It allows for less disk space for installs
(the more recent distributions are very large compared to those
of a few releases back - so people with older computers may not
have the available disk space to upgrade).

Until the recent breakage there was no reason not to use UPX.

Think of 386 or 486 computers with only 1Mb of disk cache (if that).