| 1 |
On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:51, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday 26 January 2006 05:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Another candidate would be the strip binary which might be called |
| 5 |
> > > by certain makefiles instead of being portage controlled. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > packages should never strip, only portage should |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> ebuilds don't, some makefiles do. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
exactly, thus i said "packages" and not "ebuilds" |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Sometimes when calling the strip option |
| 14 |
> of install. A strip wrapper prevents this broken behaviour once and for |
| 15 |
> all. It could even be written to show a big fat warning. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
i know ... it isnt uncommon to see like `install -s` or `$(STRIP)` in packages |
| 18 |
and those need to be removed |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
while this is a neat idea (catching those people who do `install -s`), i'm not |
| 21 |
sure it'd work as there isnt a clean way to detect whether it's the package |
| 22 |
calling `strip` or the ebuild/portage ... you could try passing info via an |
| 23 |
env var, but that's no fun :) |
| 24 |
-mike |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives