| 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 |
Archives