On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 21:15:21 Volker Braun wrote: > At the risk of veering even further off-topic, I would like to give up > "tree relocation" as it is currently defined. Its cumbersome (need to check > that we haven't been moved all the time) and insecure. > > For relocatable binaries, we build with / rewrite rpaths to be relative and > make all libtool .la files have relative paths. This may require further > dependencies, like tools to rewrite rpaths. Also, once you unpack the > binary and start compiling further stuff in its directory it may or may not > be relocatable any more. But really the goal is to distribute binaries, not > allow you to move your sage directory around all the time. All modern > linuxes and intel OSX allow relative rpaths and its modification with the > help of special tools. > > On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:00:55 AM UTC-5, William wrote: > > Of course, relocation is really a way to solve the problem "build a > > sage binary once and make it available to other people to install in > > their home directory". I don't know of any other way to solve that > > problem. I also don't know if *any* of the non-Sage build systems in > > this thread support relocation of binaries.
+1 and gentoo-prefix is not ready for making binary install. lmona.de probably should aim for that though. Francois -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
