rds95@leah.Albany.Edu (Robert Seals) (08/09/90)
AIX 3.1, real live distribution. Why is there both a /unix and a /unix.strip ? Can I get rid of one of `em? rob -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Unix has its weak points, but its file system is not one of them." -Chris Torek rob rob@asrcmv.albany.edu or rds95@leah.albany.edu I have no idea what the uucp path to me is.
RAH@IBM.COM ("Russell A. Heise") (10/10/90)
rds95@leah.Albany.Edu (Robert Seals) writes: > AIX 3.1, real live distribution. > > Why is there both a /unix and a /unix.strip ? Can I get rid of > one of `em? Yes, they are the same executable. It's just that .strip has had all the symbols stripped out. No, I would not recommend removing either. Russ Heise, AIX Technical Support, IBM
garnett@cs.utexas.edu (John William Garnett) (10/11/90)
In article <101090.080740.heise1@ibm.com> RAH@IBM.COM ("Russell A. Heise") writes: > > rds95@leah.Albany.Edu (Robert Seals) writes: > > > AIX 3.1, real live distribution. > > > > Why is there both a /unix and a /unix.strip ? Can I get rid of > > one of `em? > > Yes, they are the same executable. It's just that .strip has had all the > symbols stripped out. No, I would not recommend removing either. > >Russ Heise, AIX Technical Support, IBM Surely, AIX 3.1 doesn't use both the stripped kernel and the unstripped kernel? Is there any real reason to keep both versions of the kernel around? The stripped version should always be recreatable simply by running the strip command on a copy of the unstripped kernel (that is, "cp unix unix.strip; strip unix.strip"). The unstripped version should always be recreateable by rebuilding the kernel. I suppose the main reason not to remove one of the two would be the uncertainty of knowing which is used and which isn't. Of course, it is possible that AIX 3.1 does indeed use both /unix and /unix.strip. -- John Garnett University of Texas at Austin garnett@cs.utexas.edu Department of Computer Science Austin, Texas