how to compile?

[mark lewis]

i have a full EMX development install here... have had for a very long
time... my jamnntpd server is built with it... so my questions

1. how hard is it, really, to compile binkd with EMX?
2. are there libraries that do not come default with EMX that are absolutely
necessary?
3. is CVS or GIT access really necessary?
4. how much space does the sources take? (i'm using HPFS drives)

i can see some things that i don't need and won't use (perl, https, ntlm,
zlib to name a few) and would like to maybe compile without them... it was
rather surprising to see the size differences when i placed 1.0a-607 in
service as compared to 1.0a-446...

binkd2-1.0a-446.exe 125089 2005-Jun-06
binkd2e-1.0a-607.exe 995332 2012-Feb-20

yes, i know that 446 is watcom and 607 is emx but would that really lead to
such a large filesize difference??

[Wilfred van Velzen]

Hi mark,

On 14 Jun 12 18:38, mark lewis wrote to All:
about: "how to compile?":

ml> binkd2-1.0a-446.exe 125089 2005-Jun-06
ml> binkd2e-1.0a-607.exe 995332 2012-Feb-20

ml> yes, i know that 446 is watcom and 607 is emx but would that really lead
ml> to such a large filesize difference??

Maybe you are building a "debug" version?
Maybe you just have to "strip" it, to get rid of unneeded symbols in the object
file?

Wilfred.

[mark lewis]

ml> binkd2-1.0a-446.exe 125089 2005-Jun-06
ml> binkd2e-1.0a-607.exe 995332 2012-Feb-20

ml> yes, i know that 446 is watcom and 607 is emx but would that really lead
ml> to such a large filesize difference??

WvV> Maybe you are building a "debug" version?

possibly but i don't know because it (607) was built by someone else...

WvV> Maybe you just have to "strip" it, to get rid of unneeded symbols
WvV> in the object file?

hummm...

)\/(ark

[Wilfred van Velzen]

Hi,

On 15 Jun 12 13:49, mark lewis wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:
about: "how to compile?":

ml>> binkd2-1.0a-446.exe 125089 2005-Jun-06
ml>> binkd2e-1.0a-607.exe 995332 2012-Feb-20

WvV>> Maybe you just have to "strip" it, to get rid of unneeded symbols
WvV>> in the object file?

ml> hummm...

As an example. The 1.0a-561-ipv6-109 version I build my self on linux x64, is
548K before stripping and 156K after...

Bye, Wilfred.

[Benny Pedersen]

Hello Wilfred!

15 Jun 2012 09:35, Wilfred van Velzen wrote to mark lewis:

ml>> binkd2-1.0a-446.exe 125089 2005-Jun-06
ml>> binkd2e-1.0a-607.exe 995332 2012-Feb-20

ml>> yes, i know that 446 is watcom and 607 is emx but would that really
ml>> lead to such a large filesize difference??

WvV> Maybe you are building a "debug" version?
WvV> Maybe you just have to "strip" it, to get rid of unneeded symbols in
WvV> the object file?

or is static linked ?

ldd binkp...exe


Regards Benny

... there can only be one way of life, and it works :)

[Andre Grueneberg]

Hi mark

mark lewis schrieb:

ml> 1. how hard is it, really, to compile binkd with EMX?

It's quite straight forward ... after not using OS/2 for ~12 year, I setup an
EMX environment and compiled binkd in it within a rather short time.

Nowadays you can even setup OpenWatcom ... I've used it here to cross-compile
for OS/2.

ml> 2. are there libraries that do not come default with EMX that are
ml> absolutely necessary?

No. Maybe you want zlib and bzlib ... otherwise everything should come with
EMX.

ml> 3. is CVS or GIT access really necessary?

No, but only this will give you access to the "latest and greatest" sources.
=:)

ml> 4. how much space does the sources take? (i'm using HPFS drives)

Source is ... well, I don't know ... but including my complete git repository
and a compiled version the binkd source directory takes ~7 MiB on my linux
machine.

ml> i can see some things that i don't need and won't use (perl, https,
ml> ntlm, zlib to name a few) and would like to maybe compile without
ml> them... it was rather surprising to see the size differences when i
ml> placed 1.0a-607 in service as compared to 1.0a-446...
ml> binkd2-1.0a-446.exe 125089 2005-Jun-06
ml> binkd2e-1.0a-607.exe 995332 2012-Feb-20
ml> yes, i know that 446 is watcom and 607 is emx but would that really
ml> lead to such a large filesize difference??

As already answered by Wilfred ... this is mostly due to the fact that the EMX
version has not been strip'ped ... and thus contains a bunch of debugging
symbols.

CU Andre E-Mail: ***@grueneberg.de