On 28 May 2001, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > I was thinking of a configure-time check if `install -s' works.
>
> I'm not sure I'd trust such a check. I'm pretty sure it might be
> possible to construct situations in strip would succeed in stripping a
> certain simple program for a different arch
>>> "Maciej" == Maciej W Rozycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Maciej> On 28 May 2001, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
[...]
>> install binaries using the system's install, and strip them
>> afterward.
[...]
Maciej> What if INSTALL_PROGRAM='$INSTALL -m111' (and you are not root)?
Ah yes, good poi
On May 28, 2001, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was thinking of a configure-time check if `install -s' works.
I'm not sure I'd trust such a check. I'm pretty sure it might be
possible to construct situations in strip would succeed in stripping a
certain simple program for a
On May 28, 2001, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 May 2001, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > Note that I'm writing of a performance. Install-sh is a serious
>> > performance hit for non-trivial installs.
>>
>> How about only use install-sh for install-strip on cross builds?
>
On 26 May 2001, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Here in automake-land, we've long considered this the primary
> approach, with install-strip secondary. My recollection is that
> install-strip was added to the standards by RMS because he didn't want
> to add INSTALL_SCRIPT. In those days François advocated
On 28 May 2001, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> Although i initially suggested it, there is another
> install-strip approach that we completly forgot: install
> binaries using the system's install, and strip them afterward.
I haven't forgotten, actually. I just consider it unsafe. What if
INSTA
On 26 May 2001, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > Note that I'm writing of a performance. Install-sh is a serious
> > performance hit for non-trivial installs.
>
> How about only use install-sh for install-strip on cross builds?
Well, that actually handles one half of the problem (yes, I do cross
b
>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On May 26, 2001, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Note that I'm writing of a performance. Install-sh is a serious
>>> performance hit for non-tr
>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Tom> I agree that having install-strip work efficiently is important.
Tom> However I don't believe that it is more important than (1) getting 1.5
Tom> out in a timely way (though I don't believe this will derail it either
Tom> way), o
On May 26, 2001, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Note that I'm writing of a performance. Install-sh is a serious
>>> performance hit for non-trivial installs.
Alexandre> How about only use install-sh for install-strip o
> "Maciej" == Maciej W Rozycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Maciej> INSTALL_PROGRAM='${INSTALL} -s' ./configure
Maciej> make
Maciej> make install
Maciej> which I actually use for plain autoconf packages, which have
Maciej> no idea of install-strip. Still, it's more like a workaround
Maciej>
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Note that I'm writing of a performance. Install-sh is a serious
>> performance hit for non-trivial installs.
Alexandre> How about only use install-sh for install-strip on cross builds?
I'm ok with this idea. Can it be easily
On May 24, 2001, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23 May 2001, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> This is possible, but we don't recommend it. Instead we try to
>> approach cross builds the "autoconf way": we assume that configure
>> will use things like AC_CHECK_TOOL, etc.
> Note that I'
On 25 May 2001, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> Maciej> Note that I'm writing of a performance. Install-sh is a serious
> Maciej> performance hit for non-trivial installs.
>
> Then maybe you could bypass install-strip using something like
> ./configure LDFLAGS=-s
> make
> make install
>>> "Maciej" == Maciej W Rozycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Maciej> On 23 May 2001, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> This is possible, but we don't recommend it. Instead we try to
>> approach cross builds the "autoconf way": we assume that configure
>> will use things like AC_CHECK_TOOL, etc.
Maciej>
On 23 May 2001, Tom Tromey wrote:
> This is possible, but we don't recommend it. Instead we try to
> approach cross builds the "autoconf way": we assume that configure
> will use things like AC_CHECK_TOOL, etc.
Note that I'm writing of a performance. Install-sh is a serious
performance hit fo
> "Maciej" == Maciej W Rozycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Maciej> I'm doing cross-compiles regularly and I've never had a
Maciej> problem with `make install-strip' using install from
Maciej> fileutils. The point is cross-tools, strip included, get
Maciej> installed in ${prefix}/${target_al
Hi,
I see install is not used for `make install-strip' anymore. I'm not sure
if that's a good solution. Install-sh is a script and is thus much
slower. The gain is you may set the STRIPPROG environment variable. But
the gain is questionable.
I'm doing cross-compiles regularly and I've neve
18 matches
Mail list logo
