Subject: Size of Pine Binary

From: Kenn Herman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:59:29 -0700 (PDT)

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?

Thanks,

Kenn Herman

---

From: Cerberus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 21:21:15 -0400 (EDT)

> -rwxr-xr-x   2 root     bin       3968661 Jun 24 14:38 pine.394*

run strip on that new binary, it knocks it down to around 1.5MB or so.

Also - i fixed my 'no room to write file' error mesage i was
getting...Turns out the pine binary needs to be owned by bin, and I had it
owned root.

-dave

--
[email-masked], [email-masked]
http://ginch.dial.umd.edu/
software is cheap fast and reliable (pick two).
All day, everyday, chasing doughnuts up a hill.
RIP: Freedom of Speech.  1776-1996.  It was good while it lasted.