Your pine.391 binary is stripped and your pine.394 binary is not stripped.
The overwhelming majority of the difference in size is due to debugging
symbols in the non-stripped version. Pine is built with symbols.
This should not affect the size of the running Pine image. Symbols are
not part of the running image. The only cost is approximately 75 cents of
If you really want to make your pine.394 binary smaller, do:
Be advised that if you do this and one of your users experiences a Pine
crash, the core dump will probably be next to useless and your user will
probably be told "sorry, we don't know why it crashed and we can't find
> I just noticed the 3M size difference between pine 3.91 and pine 3.94
> that I just compiled:
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root bin 8 Jun 24 14:45 pine -> pine.394*
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 863492 Aug 22 1995 pine.391*
> -rwxr-xr-x 2 root bin 3968661 Jun 24 14:38 pine.394*
> I guess this is ok, since I looked at the size of the binaries on your
> ftp server and it is about the same size.
> -rwxrwxr-x 1 172 0 3925407 Jun 12 17:05 pine-bin.linux
> I am just curious though, how much of a performance hit is this new 4M
> pine binary versus the older 865K binary?
> Kenn Herman
-- Mark --
DoD #0105, R90/6 pilot, FAX: (206) 685-4045 ICBM: N 47 39'35" W 122 18'39"
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.