strip in rpmbuild

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 18:25 +0200, Erwin Rol wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 17:31 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 15:53 +0200, Erwin Rol wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 15:42 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 11:08 +0200, Erwin Rol wrote:
> > 
> > > > >  of course when using
> > > > > the binaries there is no circular dependency :-)
> > > > Exactly. It also has another advantage: Nothing can be "more original"
> > > > than the "original" - I.e. why rebuilding target libs when you can use
> > > > the original files?
> > > 
> > > Because those "target libs" are open source (wrapper) libs and have to
> > > be build by someone, this is very different from a closed source UNIX
> > > you mentioned where you don't have any other option but to use the
> > > closed source libraries.
> > To me, rebuilding something just because it can be done, is
> > overengineering, because
> > 
> > 1. There is no guarantee these cross built files will identical to the
> > "original" files.
> > 2. You are building cross, to run these files on a target system, i.e.
> > these files must be provided by somebody for the "target system".
> > 3. Target files from a Linux perspective are just "meaningless binary
> > data files", just like any other binary files (jpegs, sound files).
> 
> Over-engineering or not, binaries have nothing to do in source rpms,
They do. They are just "data".

Or would you install a raytracer, just because a jpeg being used as
image somewhere is being generated by a raytracer?

> especially not for an open source distribution like Fedora. And since
> they can be build from the source, there is no need for binaries in the
> first place. So to me using the binaries just sounds like
> lazy-engineering to me ;-)
Absolutely not: 

You are building a tool chain, you are not building nor supplying the
OS. The situation is not any different from building a native GCC under
Linux: You use the library binaries being provided elsewhere.

Ralf