From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43315)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1dxJv7-0005Hc-DL
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:31:06 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1dxJv4-0007bQ-9P
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:31:05 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:55060)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1dxJv4-0007bM-73
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:31:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1dxJv4-00045P-1p
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:31:02 -0400
Subject: [bug#28593] [PATCH] gnu: openfoam: Clean up to reduce closure.
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.28593.B28593.150654784414586@debbugs.gnu.org>
From: Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
References: <20170925104459.17798-1-fx@gnu.org> <87fubbj5yr.fsf@gnu.org>
	<1506426036.2423.32.camel@tourbillion-technology.com>
	<873779hdci.fsf@gnu.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:30:40 +0100
In-Reply-To: <873779hdci.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic
	\=\?iso-8859-1\?Q\?Court\=E8s\?\=
	\=\?iso-8859-1\?Q\?\=22's\?\= message of "Tue, 26
	Sep 2017 14:08:13 +0200")
Message-ID: <87efqrsubj.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: 28593@debbugs.gnu.org, Paul Garlick <pgarlick@tourbillion-technology.com>

Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> That=E2=80=99s because we use =E2=80=98--strip-debug=E2=80=99 and not =E2=
=80=98--strip-all=E2=80=99 (in some
> cases, the latter breaks binaries in weird ways, hence the conservative
> choice.)

Is that something Guix-specific?  As far as I know, with rpm and dpkg,
the binaries are always stripped, and I'm not aware of any problem with
that.

>> =C2=A0Does adding a debug output achieve the effect of stripping the
>> binaries?=C2=A0
>
> I don=E2=80=99t think it makes any difference.

Right.

Incidentally, you could save about half the size of the boost
contribution to closures like this by separating the headers and the
libraries, but there was some problem I don;t remember when I tried.