1 |
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> when emerging binpkgs if "build EPREFIX" != "your EPREFIX" - the catch? The |
3 |
> build prefix must be longer than then new prefix. I build binaries in a |
4 |
> prefix that is 97 characters long, assuming that the average user will pick |
5 |
> a shorter location ;) This greatly reduces the time for a new prefix |
6 |
> installation (down to as quick as 5-7 minutes). In my opinion, changing the |
7 |
> docs is even less of a solution. |
8 |
|
9 |
Good call - there's always a catch though isn't there ;-) Just |
10 |
overwriting strings in the binaries sounds like a good idea. Then |
11 |
there's also random regular text files too. |
12 |
|
13 |
Crossdev can be easily patched to work 'properly', and glibc / gcc |
14 |
have a bit of spots that need to be massaged, but otherwise it's |
15 |
doable (I can say that now that I've had to do it a couple of times). |
16 |
|
17 |
So is there any momentum for eprefixed binaries? I.e. something of a |
18 |
stage3? It seems like it will always be an ongoing battle, but string |
19 |
substitution probably eliminates a large part of that. |
20 |
|
21 |
Cheers, |
22 |
|
23 |
C |