Re: [gentoo-alt] portable EPREFIX? ... crossdev toolchains, anyone?

[Fabian Groffen]

On 27-05-2011 12:33:56 -0400, Christopher Friedt wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> wrote:
> > when emerging binpkgs if "build EPREFIX" != "your EPREFIX" - the catch? The
> > build prefix must be longer than then new prefix. I build binaries in a
> > prefix that is 97 characters long, assuming that the average user will pick
> > a shorter location ;) This greatly reduces the time for a new prefix
> > installation (down to as quick as 5-7 minutes). In my opinion, changing the
> > docs is even less of a solution.
>
> Good call - there's always a catch though isn't there ;-) Just
> overwriting strings in the binaries sounds like a good idea. Then
> there's also random regular text files too.

It's not too "just overwriting strings" here.  See man chpathtool.  I
just noticed this manpage is quite out of date, since it uses different
strategies for binary and text files these days.

> Crossdev can be easily patched to work 'properly', and glibc / gcc
> have a bit of spots that need to be massaged, but otherwise it's
> doable (I can say that now that I've had to do it a couple of times).
>
> So is there any momentum for eprefixed binaries? I.e. something of a
> stage3? It seems like it will always be an ongoing battle, but string
> substitution probably eliminates a large part of that.

We have the default-prefix dir on
http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/

Have you considered trying to do cross-prefix stuff (if you need it?)
E.g. building cross target for a different target EPREFIX?  You don't
really need it if you're happy with chpathtool, but technically (at one
point at least) you could emerge for a different EPREFIX than the one
portage was built with/for.  I'm not sure if this path is tested much
lately though.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level